9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently the impugned assessment framed u/s 144/148 dated 11.02.2014 also kindly be quashed. 2. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 147/144 of the Act dated 11.02.2014 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the assessment made u/s 144 by the AO without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity and even without complying with the mandatory statutory requirement of law. The impugned order so framed in gross breach of natural justice and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), kindly be quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation before us. 3. In ground Nos. 1 and 2, the legal heirs of the deceased assessee assessee have challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 on the deceased assessee. 4. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the issuance of valid notice is a foundation for the valid re-assessment proceedings. The notice prescribed u/s 148 is not a mere procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the validity of reassessment proceedings. If no notice is issued or if the notice issues is shown to be invalid, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer would be invalid and void. In the instant case, it was submitted that the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the dead person who had expired on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. 6. In support, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in case of Late Smt. Gulab Devi Sharma Th/L/h Brij Kishore Sharma vs. ITO (ITA No. 417/JP/2016 vide order dated 14.09.2016). Further reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in case of Vipin Walia vs. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 19 (Del), Alamelu Veerappan vs ITO (2018) 95 taxmann.com 155 (Mad), CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Jaiswal (2010) 325 ITR 563 (All.) besides other decisions. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that on the basis of the information available on record, action u/s 147 was initiated in the case of assessee and after taking prior approval from the competent authority, notice u/s 148 was issued on 20.03.2013 and served through post as mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had already expired and the notice was thus issued in the name of deceased assessee. Further, we find that there is no subsequent notice u/s 148 which has been issued by the Assessing Officer on the legal heirs of the deceased assessee. In this regard, we refer to the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Vipin Walia vs. ITO (supra) wherein referring to the provisions of section 159 of the Act, it was held as under: "11. Section 159(2) of the Act makes a specific reference to a reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaiswai while the correct name of the assessee was Ganga Ram Jaiswal. The Tribunal was right in holding that the defects in the notice under s. 148 were not cured by s. 292B. " 10. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Alamelu Veerappan vs ITO (supra), following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Vipin Walia, wherein it was held as under: "14. The issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act issued in the name of the dead person - the said Mr.S.Veerappan is enforceable in law and the subsidiary issue being as to whether the petitioner, being the wife of the said Mr.S.Veerappan, can be compelled to participate in the proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... problem sans complicated facts, a notice issued beyond the period of limitation i.e. 31.3.2017 is a nullity, unenforceable in law and without jurisdiction. Thus, merely because the Department was not intimated about the death of the assessee, that cannot, by itself, extend the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute. Nothing has been placed before this Court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee to immediately intimate the death of the assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration. 18. In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether Section 159 of the Act would get attracted. The answer to this question would be in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
