9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1507 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 on a dead person - notice in name of wife - HELD THAT - In the instant case there is no dispute that the assessee had expired and notice was issued on dead person. Though subsequently notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the name of his wife and the same cannot validate the invalid notice. The notice issued on a dead person is held to be invalid as discussed earlier in this order. Once the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid subsequent proceedings also become invalid and renders the assessment infructuous. Hence, we quash the notice u/s 148 and cancel the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 . See Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1) Guntur - 2019 (5) TMI 767 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a deceased person. 2. Validity of assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 to a Deceased Person: The primary issue in this case is the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a deceased person. The assessee did not file a return of income, prompting the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment under Section 147 and issue a notice under Section 148. This notice was served on the assessee's wife since the assessee had already expired by the time the notice was issued. The wife of the deceased filed the return of income, and subsequent notices under Section 143(2) were issued in her name as the legal representative of the deceased. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.03.2016, while the assessee had expired on 20.01.2011. The AO should have brought all legal heirs on record and issued the notice in their names instead of the deceased person. The Tribunal referenced the decision in the case of Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao, where it was held that a notice issued to a deceased person is invalid. The Tribunal reiterated that any proceedings initiated against a deceased person after their death must be directed towards the legal heirs for them to be binding. 2. Validity of Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Read with Section 147: The Tribunal further examined the validity of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 based on a notice issued to a deceased person. The Tribunal cited Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, which outlines the liability of legal representatives to pay any sum the deceased would have been liable to pay and to continue proceedings initiated before the death of the assessee. However, in this case, the proceedings were initiated after the death of the assessee, making the notice issued under Section 148 invalid. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan vs. ITO and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta, which held that a notice issued to a deceased person is unenforceable in law. The Tribunal emphasized that the foundational requirement for reopening an assessment is issuing a notice to the correct person, and a notice issued to a deceased person cannot be validated by subsequent proceedings against the legal heirs. Given that the notice under Section 148 was invalid, the subsequent assessment proceedings also became invalid. The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and annulled the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person was invalid, and consequently, the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was also invalid. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment were quashed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th June 2019.
|
