NANDUBEN RATILAL PATEL (SINCE DECD. ) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR PRAMOD RATILAL PATEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)

Facts

The petitioner, Pramod Ratilal Patel, is the legal heir of the deceased Nanduben Ratilal Patel. The Income Tax Department, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3), Surat, issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 30, 2019, to the deceased Nanduben Ratilal Patel for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The deceased had passed away on March 15, 2018, prior to the issuance of the notice. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Assessing Officer along with the death certificate. The petitioner has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and has objected to the validity of the proceedings from the outset.

Held

The High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued to a deceased assessee is invalid, and the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not attracted when the legal representative has not waived their right to a proper notice and has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Court distinguished the present case from those where legal representatives participated in proceedings, noting that in this case, the petitioner objected to the validity of the notice from the inception. The Court reasoned that a valid notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Assessing Officer to exercise powers under Section 147. Issuing the notice to a dead person, without the legal representative submitting to jurisdiction, means the notice is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacks the authority to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 based on such an invalid notice. The Court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned notice and all proceedings pursuant thereto.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a deceased person, instead of their legal representative, is a valid notice, considering the provisions of Section 292B and Section 159(2)(b) and (3) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued to a dead person is invalid. They relied on the decision in Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Income-tax Officer [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat)] and contended that the notice is a jurisdictional notice, and its issuance to a dead person renders the subsequent proceedings invalid, especially since the petitioner has not waived their right to a proper notice and has not submitted to the jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the issuance of the notice to a dead person is a technical defect that can be cured under Section 292B of the Act. They argued that Section 159(2)(b) and 159(3) deem the legal representative as the assessee for all practical purposes, and therefore, the notice should be considered valid. They relied on decisions where legal representatives participated in proceedings and then raised objections, suggesting waiver of technical defects.