2025 (7) TMI 509 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment against dead person - Scope of Section 159(2) - HELD THAT - Under the present facts and circumstances of the matter it is evident that admittedly the original assessee passed away on 02.10.2015 therefore no notice could have been served upon him in April 2016 and moreso the dead person could not file the return of income as required by notice u/s 148. Admittedly the notice was issued in the name of the deceased on 31.03.2016 i.e. at the fag end of the limitation prescribed under the law and it was incapable of being served upon him and in that view of the matter the entire proceedings become nonest in the eyes of law. Having regard to the jurisdictional condition envisaged under Section 148 of the Act not met we have further considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case of Braham Prakash 2004 (9) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein on the identical facts and circumstances of the matter when the notice was not even found to have been served upon the deemed assessee the subsequent proceedings were found to be bad in law as there was breach of the principle of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions contained in Section 148 of the Act. Section 159(2) of the Act makes a specific reference to the reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2) (a) of the Act speaks of a proceeding already taken against an assessee before his death Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived. It further permits such a proceeding to be taken against the legal heirs of the deceased assessee even if it had not been taken while the assessee was alive. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act is therefore applicable to the case in hand. Taking into consideration this particular provision of law it was the duty incumbent upon the AO to initiate proceeding under Section 148 of the Act against the deceased assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. The limitation for issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act was 31 March 2016. However on that particular day when the notice was issued the assessee was already dead. In that view of the matter if the Ld. AO intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act he could have done so prior to 31 March 2016 by issuing notice to the legal heir of the deceased. Beyond that date he could not have proceeded in the matter even by issuing notice to the legal heirs of the assessee. We note that the notice issued in the name of a dead person is thus not a valid notice. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal arising under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Assessment Year 2009-10, primarily revolve around the validity and maintainability of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/143(3) of the Act. Specifically, the issues are:

• Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued after the death of the original assessee is valid and maintainable.
• Whether the legal heirs of the deceased assessee were properly identified and served with the notice within the prescribed limitation period.
• Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) in issuing the notice to a deceased person renders the subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
• Whether the deletion of addition of long term capital gain (LTCG) made by the AO on the basis of alleged undervaluation of sale consideration is sustainable in view of the invalidity of the reassessment notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Validity of Notice under Section 148 Issued to a Deceased Person and Identification of Legal Heirs

The relevant legal framework includes Sections 147, 148, and 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 148 empowers the AO to reopen an assessment if income has escaped assessment, but such reopening must be preceded by the issuance of a valid notice to the assessee within the prescribed time limit. Section 159 deals with proceedings in case of death of an assessee, deeming the legal heirs as assessee for the purposes of such proceedings.

Precedents relied upon include the Supreme Court decisions in Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., and various High Court rulings such as Braham Prakash vs. ITO, Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, Vipin Walia vs. ITO, and Alamelu Virappan vs. ITO. These authorities establish that:

• A notice issued to a deceased person is not a valid notice.
• Legal heirs must be identified and notices served upon them within the limitation period to validly assume jurisdiction.
• There is no statutory obligation on the legal heirs to inform the Department of the death of the original assessee suo motu.
• Issuance of notice to a non-existent entity or dead person constitutes substantive illegality, not merely a procedural defect.
• Participation in proceedings by the legal heirs does not estop them from challenging the invalidity of the notice.

The Court interpreted these principles strictly, noting that the original assessee died on 02.10.2015, but the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2016 in his name, making it incapable of valid service. The legal heirs objected to the notice being issued to the deceased and requested the proceedings be dropped. The AO, however, directed the legal heirs to file the return, which was a reiteration of the original return filed by the deceased.

The Court found that the AO failed to serve the notice on the legal heirs within the limitation period (which ended on 31.03.2016), and no valid notice was served on the deceased while alive. Section 159(2)(b) mandates that proceedings post-death must be initiated against legal heirs within the statutory time frame. The failure to comply rendered the assumption of jurisdiction invalid and the proceedings void ab initio.

Competing arguments by the Revenue, which supported the AO's action and challenged the deletion of addition, were rejected on the ground that the jurisdictional precondition of valid notice was not met, and the legal position as per binding precedents was clear.

Deletion of Addition of Long Term Capital Gain

The AO had made an addition of Rs. 8,71,56,676/- on account of alleged undervaluation of sale consideration for the sale of a property situated at C169 Greater Kailash, New Delhi. This was based on documents found during a search and seizure operation at the premises of a deed writer, Shri Naresh Gupta, which included draft agreements indicating a higher sale consideration than declared by the assessee.

The AO adopted the higher figure of Rs. 9.90 crores as the actual sale consideration and computed LTCG accordingly. The assessee challenged this addition before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition on the ground that the reassessment proceedings themselves were invalid due to the defective notice.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of addition, reasoning that since the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio for lack of valid jurisdiction, the additions made therein could not be sustained. The Court did not delve into the merits of the addition itself, as the jurisdictional defect was decisive.

Legal Reasoning and Key Findings:

The Tribunal emphasized the principle that the validity of a notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for the AO's jurisdiction. It quoted extensively from the CIT(A)'s order, which in turn relied on authoritative judgments, stating:

"...a notice issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid notice. Further, in order to undertake proceedings in respect of a deceased person, his Legal Heirs need to be identified and notices are required to be served to such Legal Heirs, being deemed assessees, in their names and in their capacity as Legal Heirs of the deceased. The said notices are required to be served within the time- limitation prescribed... Notice to assume jurisdiction, such as notice u/s.148, when issued in respect of a dead person/non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality... no notice u/s.148 was validly served either on Sh. Vijay Gupta when he was alive or on the (deemed) assessee viz. the appellant, which renders the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. Therefore, proceedings carried out in pursuance of such wrongly-assumed jurisdiction are void ab-initio."

The Tribunal also highlighted that the legal heirs had objected promptly to the invalid notice and that there was no obligation on them to inform the Department of the death of the original assessee.

In applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal found that the AO's issuance of notice on 31.03.2016 to a deceased person was a fatal jurisdictional defect. The limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148 expired on that date, and since the assessee was dead, the notice could not be served on him. The AO should have issued the notice to the legal heirs before the expiry of the limitation period. Since this was not done, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Revenue's contention that the reassessment was valid and the addition sustainable was rejected on the ground that the jurisdictional requirement of valid notice was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found the legal position clear and binding and held that the grounds raised by the Revenue became academic once the jurisdictional defect was established.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established:

• "A notice issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid notice."
• "In order to undertake proceedings in respect of a deceased person, his legal heirs need to be identified and notices are required to be served to such legal heirs, being deemed assessees, in their names and in their capacity as legal heirs of the deceased."
• "The said notices are required to be served within the time limitation prescribed."
• "Notice to assume jurisdiction, such as notice u/s.148, when issued in respect of a dead person/non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality and not a procedural violation."
• "It is neither the obligation on the part of the legal heir of the assessee to bring to the notice of the Department the fact of demise of the original assessee suo motu."
• "No notice u/s.148 was validly served either on the deceased when alive or on the deemed assessee (legal heirs), rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid and proceedings void ab initio."
• "Participation in proceedings by the appellant cannot operate as estoppel against law."

The final determination was that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of valid notice and jurisdiction, and consequently, the deletion of the addition of LTCG was upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as devoid of merit.