2023 (11) TMI 1236 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening notice u/s 148 issued in the name of dead person - HELD THAT - Reopening notice u/s 148 issued in the name of a dead assessee is null and void being without jurisdiction. Recently, this Court in the order 2023 (11) TMI 1196 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT has also held that notice and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in the name of deceased assessee are not sustainable. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to a notice u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an order u/s 148A(d) for the assessment year 2019-20, issued in the name of a deceased assessee.

Consideration of Issues:
The main issue before the Court was whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the name of a deceased person is legally enforceable.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Notice Issued in Name of Deceased Assessee
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee, arguing that it was illegal. The Court noted that the notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable in the eyes of the law.

Issue 2: Legal Obligations of Legal Heirs
The Court cited precedents to establish that legal heirs are not under a statutory obligation to inform the revenue department of the death of the assessee. It emphasized that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is not protected by relevant provisions of the Act.

Decision:
The Court quashed the impugned notice and order issued in the name of the deceased assessee for the assessment year 2019-20. It held that all consequential proceedings arising from the notice were not sustainable. The respondent was given the liberty to reinitiate proceedings against the legal heir of the deceased if deemed necessary.

Significant Legal Precedents:
The judgment referred to various High Court decisions emphasizing that notices issued to deceased persons for reassessment are null and void. It highlighted the importance of issuing notices to the correct person for jurisdictional validity.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The Court directed the quashing of the notice and order, while granting the respondent the option to recommence proceedings against the legal heir if required.