1981 (2) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (AAC) could set aside the assessment and issue directions to the Income-tax Officer (ITO) for framing proper assessment on the legal heirs of the deceased assessee.
2. If the answer to the first question is negative, whether the assessment made in the name of the deceased for the assessment year 1962-63 was liable to be annulled.

Summary:

Issue 1: Authority of AAC to Set Aside Assessment and Issue Directions
The court examined whether the AAC had the authority to set aside the assessment and direct the ITO to frame a proper assessment on the legal heirs of the deceased, Shri Neecha Ram. The court noted that u/s 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the legal representative is liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, and the liability is limited to the extent of the estate of the deceased. The court observed that the proceedings against the deceased could be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which they stood at the time of the death of the deceased. The AAC had found that the ITO did not properly proceed against the legal representatives and directed the ITO to reassess the legal heirs. The court held that the AAC had the jurisdiction to issue such a direction, especially since the legal representatives had appeared before the ITO and participated in the proceedings, which could mislead the ITO into believing that the proceedings were properly constituted.

Issue 2: Validity of Assessment in the Name of Deceased
Since the court answered the first question in the affirmative, it did not address the second question regarding the annulment of the assessment made in the name of the deceased for the assessment year 1962-63.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the AAC could set aside the assessment and issue directions to the ITO for framing a proper assessment on the legal heirs of Shri Neecha Ram. The court did not address the second question as it was contingent on a negative answer to the first question. The court left the parties to bear their own costs due to the novel nature of the questions involved.