आयकर अपील

य अ
धकरण, ए’ यायपीठ, चेनई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI

ी अाहम पी. जॉज, लेखा सदय एवं

ी ध#ु व$
ु आर.एल रे %डी, या(यक सदय के सम* ।
[BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER]

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3300/CHNY/2018.

नधारण वष /Assessment year : 2014-2015.

Late Pratapsee R. Mehta, The Income Tax Officer,

by L/R. Vanita Mehta Non Corporate Ward 10(3)
40/41, Ranga Nivas, Chennai.
Banaby Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010.

[PAN AHEPM 4380N]

(अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. K. Balasubramanian, Adv

यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT.

सन
ु वाई क तारख/Date of Hearing : 06-03-2019
घोषणा क तारख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-03-2019

आदे श / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

In this appeal, which is directed against an order dated

25.09.2018 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai,

main grievance raised is that the assessment was done on a

deceased person, and income claimed as exempt from long term

 :- 2 -: ITA No.3300/2018

capital gains on sale of share was unfairly considered as income from

unexplained source.

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that long term capital

gains of C11,47,849/- arising sale of equity shares of one M/s.Blazon

Marbles Ltd was disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer and

considered as unexplained income. As per the ld. Authorised

Representative, legal heir of the late assessee had intimated the ld.

Assessing Officer that the assessee was no more. Relying on a copy of

the notice dated 22.08.2016 issued by the ld. Assessing Officer to the

legal heir, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Assessing

Officer despite having knowledge of the death of the assessee passed

an assessment order in the name of the deceased. In any case, as per

the ld. Authorised Representative, equity shares in M/s.Blazon Marbles

Ltd was received by the late assessee on merger of one M/s.

Shubham Granites Ltd with the former. According to him, the late

assessee had purchased 5000 shares of M/s. Shubham Granites Ltd on

31.05.2011 and sale thereof effected through stock exchange was

genuine. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that

assessee was not given an opportunity to reply to the investigation

report of Investigation Wing of Department of Kolkata and Delhi relied

 :- 3 -: ITA No.3300/2018

on by the lower authorities for holding that the claim of sale of shares

in M/s. Shubham Granites Ltd was bogus.

3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that

the matter could go back to the ld. Assessing Officer for reconsidering

the issue.

4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the

orders of the authorities below. It is true that assessee was no more

when the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. However,

in our opinion, just for a reason that ld. Assessing Officer had issued a

notice to the legal heir of the assessee on 22.08.2016, would not be

sufficient to come to a conclusion that ld. Assessing Officer was made

aware of the death of the assessee by the legal heir. Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had confirmed the order of the

ld. Assessing Officer taking a view that the mistake in addressing

committed by the ld. Assessing Officer was a typographical one.

Nevertheless, we find that the ld. Assessing Officer had relied on

investigation reports of the Investigation Wing of the Department of

Kolkata and Delhi for disbelieving the claim of sale of shares. Ld.

Assessing Officer had also relied on statements recorded from various

persons for while reaching the above conclusion. We are of the

opinion that issue requires a re-visit by ld. Assessing Officer. We set

 :- 4 -: ITA No.3300/2018

aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the case back to the

ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh. Ld. Assessing Officer

has to give all materials relied on by him for making the assessment to

the assessee and also give an opportunity for cross examination of the

persons whose statements are relied on. Thereafter he shall proceed

in accordance with law.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 7th day of March, 2019, at

Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/-
(ध#ु व$
ु आर.एल रे %डी) (अाहम पी. जॉज)
(DUVVURU RL REDDY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)
या(यक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे#नई/Chennai
$दनांक/Dated:7th March, 2019.
KV

आदे श क त'ल(प अ)े(षत/Copy to:

1. अपीलाथ/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु*त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. (वभागीय तन/ध/DR
2. यथ/Respondent 4. आयकर आय*
ु त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF