Case Law Details
Maddikunta Sanjeeva Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
The case of Maddikunta Sanjeeva Reddy vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) revolves around an assessment year 2013-14 where the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The crux of the matter lies in the AO’s failure to issue a notice under section 148 against all legal heirs of the deceased, focusing solely on the deceased individual.
The appellant, Sanjeeva Reddy, raised several grounds challenging the assessment. Firstly, it was contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overlooked the submissions due to non-response to hearing notices, despite evidence provided along with Form 35. Secondly, technical proficiency issues were highlighted regarding communication through email, affecting the appellant’s ability to respond promptly to notifications. Thirdly, the AO’s conclusion without proper information or hearing, resulting in an addition to the appellant’s income, was challenged as unfair. Furthermore, the appellant disputed the addition to their income without proper notification or information. Additionally, the AO’s treatment of the land as a capital asset without considering cost of acquisition was contested. Moreover, misinterpretation of the appellant’s written representation was argued against, emphasizing the number of legal heirs involved. Lastly, the appellant raised the issue of differential treatment of the same property under the same law.
The brief facts presented by the AO outlined the initiation of proceedings under section 147 due to non-filing of income tax return by the deceased, Maddikunta Narayana Reddy, for the assessment year under consideration. The AO proposed to tax a portion of the sale consideration under Income from Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of Sanjeeva Reddy, based on his share as a legal heir.
The appellant’s contentions were reiterated before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by the authorized representative. It was argued that the notice issued against the deceased was flawed, lacking proper application of mind by the AO. The absence of a fresh notice under section 148 against all legal heirs after the death of the individual was emphasized as a jurisdictional error. The ITAT concurred, ruling in favor of the appellant, quashing the assessment framed on the basis of the defective notice.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
