COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions of law have been referred to us for our decision:

(2.) THESE questions relate to the assessment of late Shri Neecha Ram for the assessment years l962 -63 and l963 -64. The assessment orders for these two assessment years were framed by the ITO concerned on 20th December, 1965, and 25th January, 1966, respectively. It is common ground before us that Shri Neecha Ram, the assessee, had died on 5th November, 1964, which was at least more than a year before each of the assessment orders was passed. The assessment order for the year 1962 -63, which is annex. "A" to the statement of case, does not state anywhere that the assessee had died, but it does show that Shri Roshan Lal, son of the assessee, had attended along with Shri B. B. Ahuja , advocate, and the case had been discussed. The assessment order also shows that two houses had been constructed by the assessee and there was an unexplained investment. Part of this unexplained investment was added in the asst. year 1962 -63, and part of it was added in the asst. year 1963 -64. In the case of the asst. year 1963 -64, the name of the assessee is shown as "Shri Neecha Ram through his legal representative, Shri Roshan Lal". So, in the later year it appears that the ITO had taken note of the fact that the assessee had died.

(3.) AN appeal was thereafter taken by the legal representatives, objecting to the remand and the direction, to the Tribunal, which by its order dated 5th March, 1970, held that the proceedings were a nullity. In fact, the decision is that the AAC could only set aside the assessment and could not set aside the assessment with a direction to frame a proper assessment. The real question before us is whether, (a) the assessment made by the ITO was valid, or (b) the assessment was invalid and the direction of the AAC directing the reassessment of the assessee was correct, or (c) the initial assessment was totally invalid as it was not in accordance with law.