2019 (2) TMI 2119 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty orders in the name of dead person - HELD THAT - As relying on SHRI M. HEMANATHAN 2016 (4) TMI 258 - MADRAS HIGH COURT we hold that the penalty proceedings initiated against the dead person was not enforceable in law and thus the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in pursuance of such invalid initiation is not sustainable and hence delete the penalty. Thus, we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional grounds raised challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
2. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated against a deceased person.
3. Legal implications of issuing notices and orders in the name of a deceased individual.
4. Admissibility of additional grounds based on legal principles.
5. Application of legal precedents in determining the enforceability of penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. The appellant sought admission of additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant argued that the penalty notice was issued without jurisdiction and in the name of a deceased person, rendering the proceedings null and void. The additional grounds were considered purely legal in nature and were allowed to be raised based on existing facts on record.

2. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings against the deceased individual without striking the irrelevant portion of the notice, which was deemed invalid. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the ITAT and the decision of the Madras High Court to support the contention that penalty proceedings against a deceased person are not enforceable by law. Citing various legal precedents, including cases like Spice Infotainment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and Emerald Co. Ltd. v. ITO, the Tribunal held that penalty imposed in such cases is not sustainable and deleted the penalty in question.

3. The Tribunal further emphasized that notices and orders issued in the name of a deceased person are null and void, as per legal principles established in relevant judgments. The decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Hemanathan was cited to support the argument that proceedings cannot be continued against the legal representative of a deceased individual. The Tribunal's ruling was in line with the legal position that penalty proceedings against a deceased person are not legally valid.

4. The application of legal principles and precedents, such as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, played a crucial role in allowing the additional grounds raised by the appellant. The Tribunal relied on established legal doctrines to admit and adjudicate on the additional grounds challenging the validity of penalty proceedings initiated against a deceased individual. The decision was based on the principle that legal proceedings against a deceased person lack legal enforceability.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for both AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11, based on the findings related to the invalidity of penalty proceedings against a deceased person. The consistent application of legal principles and precedents led to the deletion of the penalty imposed, highlighting the significance of legal correctness and adherence to established legal norms in tax matters.