ORDER 

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

This appeal by the assessee through Legal Representative is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A), Ajmer dated 19^th August, 2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

“ 1. Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming action of the AO in issuing notice u/s 148 in the name of the deceased assessee.

2. Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming action of the AO in estimating Agriculture Income of the assessee at Rs. 100000/-, instead of Rs. 2,50,000/- as declared by the assessee in Return of Income.

3. Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming addition of Rs. 5,92,000/- by treating amount deposited in Bank Account of the assessee as unexplained deposit.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

The hearing of the appeal is concluded through Video Conference due to prevailing condition of COVID 19 pandemic.

Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of notice issued under section 148 in the name of the deceased assessee.

2. The assessee late Shri Sanwarlal Choudhary died on 12.06.2012. He was retired Government employee and was having income from Pension besides Agricultural Income. The AO received the information about the deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2011-12 of Rs. 10,99,500/- in Savings Bank account and Time Deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Accordingly, the AO issued notice under section 148 on 28^th March, 2018 in the name of deceased assessee. The legal representative of the assessee raised the objection against the validity of notice under section 148 vide letter dated 05.07.2018 which was disposed off by the AO vide order dated 21^st November, 2018. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 whereby an addition of Rs. 5,92,000/- has been made on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account by restricting the agricultural income from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and also challenged the validity of reopening, however, could not succeed.

3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has issued the notice under section 148 on 28^th March, 2018 in the name of the deceased assessee who had passed away on 12.06.2012, therefore, the notice issued in the name of the deceased person is invalid and liable to be quashed. He has further contended that in the absence of any notice issued under section 148 to the Legal Representative of the deceased assessee within the period of limitation which expired on 31^st March, 2018, the proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147/148 are not valid and a nullity in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions :-

Vipin Walia vs. ITO

382 ITR 19 (Delhi)

Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO

414 ITR 286 (Delhi)

Tribunal’s Order dated 26^th November, 2019 in

ITA No. 989/JP/2015 (Jaipur)

4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has conducted an enquiry to verify the source of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee prior to issuing the notice under section 148. However, there was no response from the assessee or of the Legal Representative of the assessee to the said enquiry conducted by the AO. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act despite the fact that the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee is more than the threshold amount liable to tax. Therefore, the AO had the belief that Income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There