TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of issuing fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act is coming out from the material on record. The coordinate Bench of Chandigarh in the case of Shri Balbir Singh vs. ITO [ 2019 (6) TMI 913 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee. Thus any notice issued in the name of dead person cannot empower the Assessing Officer to pass a valid assessment order - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 720/Lkw/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2021 - T. S. Kapoor, Member (A) For the Appellant : Dharmendra Kumar, CA For the Respondents : Ajay Kumar, DR ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Barabanki dated 02.09.2019. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act and notice was issued on 26.03.2015 and which was served through affixture by income tax inspector on 31.03.2015. The ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer was informed that the assessee had already died on 01.07.2012 and thereafter Assessing Officer instead of issuing again notice u/s. 148 of the Act to legal heirs of the assessee state forward issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act to legal heir for compliance. The Compliance of which could not be made and the Assessing Officer made the addition after passing order u/s. 144 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that it is an admitted fact that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued only in the name of a person who had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy issued and on the death of the assessee the proceedings will be deemed to be continuance of earlier proceedings initiated through notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 4. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. I find that it is undisputed fact that assessee had died on 01.07.2012 which fact is noted by the Assessing Officer himself at page 2 in para 2 of his order. The notice was issued on 26.03.2015 and which was served by affixture on 31.03.2015. Therefore, when the notice was issued, the assessee was not in existence and was already dead and therefore such notice cannot be said to be a legal and valid notice. The Revenue was also not able to demonstrate that fresh notice was served u/s. 148 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not a merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. Thus, a notice which has been issued in the name of the dead person is also not protected either by provisions of Section 292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The Hon'ble High Court has further observed that Section 148 of the Act requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment, a notice be served upon the assessee. The assessee on whom the notice must be sent must be a living person i.e., legal heir of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y any person. Had the Income-tax officials actually gone to the house of the deceased assessee and enquired from the villagers about the whereabouts of the assessee for the purpose of service of the notice, they could have easily come to know about the death of the original assessee and would have accordingly apprised the Assessing officer. 6. It is not believable that the Revenue officials had visited the house of the assessee and they could not get the information about the death of the assessee despite affixation of the notice which is also required to be witnessed by some independent/respectable of the village. 7. The Ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the receipt which has been printed on the back of the stamp p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
