Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Umesh Chandra Sikder, filed his return of income on 24.12.2020 and passed away on 29.12.2020. A notice under Section 148 and subsequently under Section 143(2) were issued in the deceased's name. His legal heir, Smt. Gita Rani Sikder, informed the Assessing Officer of his death but allegedly did not cooperate with repeated requests to bring legal heirs on record, leading to the assessment being completed in the name of the deceased. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment for re-adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to set aside the assessment for re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer. It distinguished the Delhi High Court ruling cited by the appellant, noting that in the present case, the department had made efforts to contact the legal heir. The Tribunal found the legal heir's conduct to be non-cooperative and stated that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, thereby confirming the CIT(A)'s decision.
Key Issues
1. Validity of assessment proceedings completed in the name of a deceased person after intimation of death. 2. Obligation of legal heirs to cooperate with assessment proceedings and be brought on record, particularly in light of Section 159.
Sections Cited
148, 143(2), 265, 119, 159
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2013-2014 2. Shri Sujit Basu & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, ld. ARs appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee Late Umesh Chandra Sikder had filed his return of income on 24.12.2020. He had expired on 29.12.2020. A notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on 23.03.2020 and the return has been filed in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. It was the submission that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act came to be issued in the name of Umesh Chandra Sikder on 01.03.2021. Smt. Gitarani Sikder vide a letter dated 19.08.2021 had intimated the Assessing Officer that Shri Umesh Chandra Sikder had expired and also provided a death certificate. It was the submission that after this the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment in the name of dead person and on the Pan of the dead person. It was the submission that as the assessment has been done in the name of dead person, the assessment is liable to be quashed.
Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi in the case of Savita Kapila, Legal Heir of Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila, passed in W.P(C) 3258/2020, dated 16.07.2020, wherein in para 32 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as follows :- THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION UPON LEGAL HEIRS TO INTIMATE THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE.
This Court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the income tax department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased assessee or the deceased assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether PAN record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu Veerappan (supra) it has been held "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."
Ld.AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer, passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2024, dated 19.03.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in para 7 to 7.2 has held as follows :-
7. Article 265 of the Constitution of India, prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because State cannot at its whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law, as has been held in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors., 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (SC). 7.1. In a taxing statute, one has to look at the text as it is. There is no equity in taxation law. There is no intendment and presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in and nothing is to be implied. 7.2. The basic principle of charge under Tax Statutes is, "No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay a burden upon him."
It was the submission that as the assessment has been done on a dead person, the same is liable to be quashed.
Ld.AR also placed reliance on the Circular issued by the CBDT in F.No.225/97/2021/ITA-II, dated 6th September, 2021, wherein it has been held that personal hearings has to be conducted in a designated area in Income Tax Offices. Ld.AR also placed reliance on the order u/s.119 of the Act issued by the CBDT in F No.187/3/2020-ITA-I, dated 6th September, 2021, wherein it has categorically been held that where the PAN is not available the NFAC is not to pass the assessment order. It was the submission that the assessment order is liable to be quashed.
In reply, ld.Sr. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has set aside the assessment to the Assessing Officer for readjudication in accordance with law. The assessee admittedly has filed the appeal against the set aside order of the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the assessment order shows that in page 4, the Assessing Officer recognized that Smt. Gita Rani Sikder, who is the wife of deceased- assessee, has furnished a response that the assessee had expired on 29.12.2020 and has provided the death certificate itself. This clearly shows that Smt. Gita Rani Sikder was well aware of the proceeding that was in the case of the assessee. An email had been addressed to Smt. Gita Rani Sikder requested her to bring the legal heirs on record. This is also mentioned in the first paragraph at page 4 of the assessment order. The said Gita Rani Sikder has not responded to the email. Another letter seems to have been on 14.09.2021 to Smt. Gita Rani Sikder to which also there has been no compliance. Left with no other alternative the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on 29.09.2021. Now, Smt. Gita Rani Sikder has assumed the status of legal heir but for the purpose of the assessment she conveniently decided too be non-cooperative. This is nothing but contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. Insofar as due taxes will not be paid but the department is expected to do justice. The ld.CIT(A) admittedly has given another opportunity by setting aside the issues to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer but the legal heir is still not satisfied. As notices have already been given to the legal heir and as the PAN of the said legal heir Smt. Gita Rani Sikder is available and as recorded by the ld.AO in page 5 of his assessment order, I am of the view that the assessee is entitled to any further relief. However, as the ld.CIT(A) has restored the issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication and as the revenue has not challenged the said relief granted to the assessee, it is not possible for the Tribunal to deny the relief to the assessee beyond what has been denied by the first appellate authority.
This being so, I am of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) would have to be upheld and consequently the findings of ld. CIT(A) restoring the issues to the file of the ld.AO stands upheld.
Coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quoted by the ld. AR in the case of Savita Kapila, referred to supra, the same does not apply to the facts of the assessee’s case, insofar as that was a case where the assessment has been done on the deceased assessee without any notice or request to the legal heir to provide the details for bringing them on record. Here in assessee’s case there has been repeated requests from the revenue to legal heir to provide details for being brought on record. The reliance placed by the ld. AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer, referred to supra, actually goes against the assessee as in the said decision the Hon’ble High Court has held that, “No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay a burden upon him.” In the present case though the assessee’s claim is that there is no provision for brining legal heir record, the same does not stand to a reason, insofar as the provision of Section 159 of the Act are available in the statute.
Coming to the circular quoted by the ld. AR, it is in regard to the procedure for handling of assessment by jurisdictional assessing officers. Here notices have been issued by the ITO being the jurisdictional Assessing Officer but also by the faceless Assessing Officer and the legal heir has conveniently not cooperated in the proceedings nor responded to the letters issued other than intimating the letter of the death of the