9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rushaindra Kumar Kaurav For the Petitioner : Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar And Mr. Pushkar Khanna, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC along with Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs, Mr. Ojaswa Pathak and Mr. Ishan Puri, Advs. ORDER PER: PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. 1. The present writ petitions seek to assail the impugned notices dated 31.03.2021 and 19.04.2021 issued under Section 148A(b), assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Sections 147 read with 143, order dated 20.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice of even date issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act ] for the Assessment Year [ AY ] 2013-14. 2. The brief facts that are relevant to decide the controversy at hand would reveal that the writ petitioner is the legal heir of the assessee Late Mr. Prem Sagar Jain. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was issued two PAN nos. namely PAN No. ADPPJ6930L and PAN No. ACRPJ0286A, which was also intimated to the Revenue vide letter dated 28.02.2014. Vide aforenoted letter, the assessee informed the Revenue that from the AY 2009-10, the assessee was filing his Income Tax Return [ ITR ] on PAN no. ACRPJ0286A ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny for AY 2013-14 and therefore, the proceedings of the previous AY have no bearing over the AY in question. 9. We have heard the learned counsels on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 10. The solitary question that arises before us is whether the impugned action which is sought to be initiated under Section 148 of the Act is permissible against a dead person. 11. It is pertinent to point out that vide order dated 25.09.2017, for the AY 2010-11, the Revenue has dropped the proceedings on the ground that the proceedings were initiated on an old PAN which was not operational during the relevant AY. For the sake of clarity, the relevant extracts of the aforementioned order are reproduced herein below:- In the instant case information was received from DIT (I CI), New Delhi regarding receipt of interest income to the tune of Rs. 9,14,265/- and the assessee had not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the IT Act after recording reasons u/s 148 (2) of the IT Act. Noticed u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2017 and was duly served upon the assessee. 2. In response to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has submitted that the assessee is regularly filing his return of income against PAN-ACRPJ0286A since 2012-13 till latest of A. Y. 2018-19, the claim of the assessee is found to be true and has been verified on ITBA Portal. The assessee has submitted ITR for A.Y. 2012-13 filed against PAN-ACRPJ0286A, computation of income, P L account and Balance Sheet for F.Y. 2011-12. On perusal of F L Account it is evident that assessee has shown interest income at Rs. 17,78,935/- which has been taken on account. Also, as per the death certificate submitted against notice u/s 142( 1), the assessee had died on 09.02.2019 i.e. before the date of issue and serving of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. In view of the above assessment proceeding in this case is hereby dropped. However, penalty for de-duplication of PAN u/s 272B is being initiated separately. 13. In light of the abovementioned undisputed position of facts and the Revenue s consistent stand in the case of the assessee for previous AYs, we now proceed to examine the challenge that stands raised before us. 14. We note the pertinent observations of this Court in the case of Savita Kapila v. Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer without raising any objection. Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased-assessee is null and void. Also, no notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was ever issued upon the petitioner during the period of limitation. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. 28. Also, no notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was ever issued to the petitioner during the period of limitation and simply proceedings were transferred to the permanent account number of the petitioner, who happens to be one of the four legal heirs of the deceased-assessee vide letter dated December 27, 2019. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction qua the petitioner for the relevant assessment year is beyond the period prescribed and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation in accordance with section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. 29. As in the present case proceedings were not initiated/pending against the assessee when he was alive and after his death the legal representative did not step into the shoes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on November 2, 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the special leave petition for the assessment year 2011-12. In doing so, this court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 35. This court is of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Consequently, section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case. 15. The above noted settled position of law was also followed in the decision of this Court in the case of Vikram Bhatnagar v. CIT (supra), wherein this Court while dealing with the identical questions held as follows:- 11. In the present case as admitted by the Respondent the facts are admitted. The death of the Assessee was duly communicated by his leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
