ASHA GARG,JAIPUR vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE -4, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1804/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 October 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated March 31, 2023, issued to the deceased Smt. Asha Garg, is invalid. The Tribunal noted that Smt. Asha Garg died on November 28, 2020, and the notice was addressed to her alone, despite the department being aware of her death, as evidenced by the statement of the legal heir and the assessment order itself referring to the assessee as 'Late Smt. Asha Garg'. No notice was issued to the legal representative as mandated by section 159(2)(b) of the Act. Following the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Devendra Pareek v. ACIT, the Tribunal held that proceedings against a deceased person cannot be initiated under section 148A, and section 159 must be invoked by issuing notice to the legal representative. A notice to a deceased person is legally a notice to no one. The Tribunal further held that section 292BB of the Act, which deems service of notice upon participation, does not validate a notice issued to a person against whom no lawful proceeding could be taken, nor can jurisdiction be conferred by acquiescence. Therefore, the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, founded on the invalid notice, is void. Grounds 1 and 2 are allowed, and grounds 3 to 8 are left undecided as they have become academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Asha Garg, passed away on November 28, 2020. The Assessing Officer (AO), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2023, to the deceased assessee. This notice was issued for reassessment for the assessment year 2019-20, based on data seized during a search on the Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group. The AO completed the reassessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, making additions totaling ₹1,18,98,559. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld these additions. The appeal is filed by Shri Lalit Kumar Garg, the legal heir of Smt. Asha Garg, against the CIT(A)'s order dated October 14, 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to a deceased person, Smt. Asha Garg, is valid, and consequently, whether the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are valid? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was issued to a deceased person more than two years after her death, despite the department being aware of her demise. No notice was issued to the legal representative as required by section 159(2)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the death certificate and the notice itself. The assessee also contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated mechanically based on an investigation wing report without independent application of mind and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 35,Section 132,Section 159,Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prakash

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Prakash, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1804/JPR/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20

Asha Garg Central Circle-04, Shri Lalit Kumar Garg Legal Jaipur (Respondent) Heir of Smt. Asha Garg 60, Vs Rajamal Ka Talab, Chandi Ki Taksal, Jaipur PAN: AEQPG5948B (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Ms. Shreya Sharda, CA & Sh. Shubham Sharma, Adv. Revenue Represented: Sh. Anand Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 06-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 26-10-2026 आदेश/ORDER

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5 [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 14.10.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No. 1804/JPR/2025 Asha Garg referred to as “the Act”). The appeal is prosecuted by Shri Lalit Kumar Garg, husband and legal heir of Smt. Asha Garg.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under:

1.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and in making the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, which is bad in law as well as on facts.

3.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹1,09,85,240 under section 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained cash receipts and taxing it under section 115BBE of the Act, which is bad in law and on facts.

4.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹3,99,650 under the head “Unaccounted Interest Income,” which is bad in law and on facts.

5.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expense of ₹5,13,669 under section 35 of the Act, which is bad in law and on facts.

6.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order which is violative of the principles of natural justice, as the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari was not provided to the appellant despite a specific request during the course of the assessment proceedings.

ITA No. 1804/JPR/2025 Asha Garg 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO who initiated proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act merely on the basis of a report of the Investigation Wing, without any independent inquiry or application of mind while recording the reasons for reopening. Such mechanical initiation of reassessment proceedings vitiates the entire proceedings, rendering them bad in law.

8.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment framed by the Ld. AO without appreciating that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group on 23.11.2021. The Investigation Wing had possession of the relevant information since that date. The assessee specifically requested the Ld. AO to provide the date of receipt of such information, which was not furnished. The Ld. AO failed to conduct any independent inquiry or allow cross-examination of the parties concerned, thereby framing the assessment merely on assumptions, conjectures, and surmises, which is untenable in law.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on the basis of data in pen drives seized in the search on the Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group on 23.11.2021 and owned by Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 and completed the reassessment at a total income of Rs 1,26,50,398. The additions were Rs 1,09,85,240 under section 69A of the Act on incremental peak credit, Rs 3,99,650 as unaccounted interest income and Rs 5,13,669 by disallowing interest expenditure, aggregating to Rs 1,18,98,559. The learned CIT(A) upheld the additions. The plea that the notice was issued to a deceased person was rejected in paragraph 4.2.2 of the impugned order as a curable irregularity, on the reasoning that the legal heir had participated, that the plea was not raised before the AO, and that non compliance with section 159 of the Act had not been shown.

ITA No. 1804/JPR/2025 Asha Garg 4. The learned Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the learned AR”) submitted that Smt. Asha Garg died on 28.11.2020, that the notice was issued in her name more than two years later though the Department knew of her death, and that no notice was issued to the legal representative. Reliance was placed on the notice and the death certificate. The learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the learned DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

We have heard both parties and perused the material on record. Grounds 1 and 2 go to the root of the jurisdiction and are taken up first. The death certificate records that Smt. Asha Garg died on 28.11.2020. The notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 is addressed to “ASHA GARG” alone and calls upon the addressee to file a return. The Department knew of the death: Shri Lalit Kumar Garg stated it in his statement recorded by the Investigation Wing on 09.12.2021, and the assessment order itself refers to the assessee as “Late Smt. Asha Garg”. No notice under section 148 of the Act issued to the legal representative is on record.

6.

Since no proceeding was pending against Smt. Asha Garg at her death, the reassessment fell under clause (b) of section 159(2) of the Act, which reads:

“(b) any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and”

The statute thus names the person against whom such a proceeding must be initiated. A notice to the dead is, in law, a notice to no one. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Devendra Pareek v. ACIT [2026] 186 taxmann.com 979 (Raj.), following its earlier decisions in Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari v. ITO and Meena V. Kumar v. Principal Chief CIT, held in paragraph 3 as under:

ITA No. 1804/JPR/2025 Asha Garg “3. The law in this regard is well settled that proceedings against person who has expired, cannot be initiated under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 and what is required to be inducted is by way of taking aid of Section 159 of the Act of 1961, which has not been done in the present case.”

7.

The reasons given by the learned CIT(A) do not save the notice. The notice on record is itself addressed to the deceased. Section 292BB of the Act deems service of a notice where the assessee participates. It does not validate a notice issued to a person against whom no proceeding could lawfully be taken, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiescence. The plea is a pure question of law on undisputed facts and was decided by the learned CIT(A). Nor is this a case where the death was concealed from the Department.

8.

Respectfully following Devendra Pareek (supra), we hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 is invalid and that the assessment order dated 13.03.2024 founded on it is void. The assessment order is quashed and grounds 1 and 2 are allowed. Grounds 3 to 8 have become academic and are left open.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (PRAKASH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26/10/2026 *Ganesh Kr., Sr. PS आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 5

ITA No. 1804/JPR/2025 Asha Garg Ganesh Digitally signed 4. CIT (A) by Ganesh Kumar Kumar Date: 2026.11.02 5. DR, ITAT 11:36:12 +05'30' 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, t;iqj

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →