2004 (1) TMI 329 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person.
2. Whether the Tribunal's order dated 24-6-1997 should be recalled under section 254(2) for rectification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed in the Name of a Deceased Person

Revenue's Argument:
- The assessment was completed on 2-3-1990, determining the net wealth at Rs. 52,51,300, despite the assessee's death on 20-3-1987.
- Legal representatives of the deceased had participated in the proceedings, as evidenced by appearances and correspondences from Shri Om Prakash and Shri M.S. Rao ITP.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged Shri Ramesh Pershad Goel as the legal representative, and the legal representative did not contest the validity of the assessment.
- The Tribunal's order, which declared the assessment a nullity, should be reconsidered as the legal representative was involved in the proceedings.
- Reliance was placed on several case laws, including Swaran Kanta v. CIT, CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh, and Vijay Sarin v. ITO, supporting the argument that procedural defects do not render an assessment void if the legal representative is involved.

Assessee's Argument:
- The assessment order dated 2-3-1990 was issued in the name of the deceased, making it null and void.
- Proceedings were consistently conducted against the deceased, not the legal representatives, even after the department was aware of the death.
- Reliance was placed on CWT v. V.S. Meenakshi Achi, where it was held that assessments made on a deceased person are invalid.

Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal initially held that the assessment order was a nullity as it was made on a dead person.
- The Tribunal noted that the legal representatives were involved, but the assessment order still named the deceased, which was a clear error.
- The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument, emphasizing that the assessment should have been explicitly against the legal representative.

2. Whether the Tribunal's Order Dated 24-6-1997 Should Be Recalled Under Section 254(2) for Rectification

Revenue's Argument:
- The Tribunal's order should be recalled as the assessment was valid despite the procedural error.
- The Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under section 254(2).

Tribunal's Analysis:
- The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial force in the revenue's argument but emphasized that the Tribunal's power under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes, not reviewing or rewriting its own order.
- The Tribunal cited CIT v. R. Chelladurai and CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi, reinforcing that it cannot change its earlier decision based on a review of the facts.
- The Tribunal also referenced CIT v. ITAT, where the jurisdictional High Court held that the Tribunal cannot exceed its jurisdiction by recalling an order to rewrite it.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in its earlier order that could be rectified under section 254(2).
- The Tribunal expressed its inability to change its earlier decision, noting that the remedy for the revenue lies elsewhere, particularly since a reference application against the Tribunal's order was already filed.
- The Tribunal rejected the revenue's miscellaneous petition, maintaining that the assessment order was a nullity and could not be rectified under section 254(2).

Final Judgment:
- The miscellaneous petition of the revenue was rejected, and the Tribunal's order dated 24-6-1997, which declared the assessment order a nullity, stood affirmed.