SHRI MAHMADHUSEN SALMANJI GANDHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Therefore, the ld.DR pointed out that the assessee (who died) himself filed the letter on 26.03.2022 before the assessing officer and furnished explanation before the assessing officer. Therefore, if the assessee (who died) in his own signature, the legal heir, has filed the reply before the assessing officer, on 26.03.2022 and the said reply was recorded by the assessing officer in the assessment order, it means that the assessee was alive and legal heirs put false signature of the dead person on the written submission, as if, the assessee Shri Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi Vs. Pr.CIT (AY : 2015-16) 3 was alive. That is, assessee was not died. It may be possible that legal heirs may file reply on behalf of the deceased with the signature of the deceased persons, however, it was the duty of legal heirs to inform the Department that they are pursuing the appeal on behalf of the deceased persons, and legal heirs should register themselves on the portal of the Income Tax Department, and should do the correspondence on behalf of the deceased person, and legal heirs should inform to the Income Tax Department, that the assessee has died.

However, legal heirs were submitting written submissions before assessing officer by putting signature of the dead person, as if the dead person is alive, which is perjury. Instead of doing this, illegal practice, to submit the letter and written submission by putting signature of the dead person, the legal heirs of such deceased person, should register their name in the income tax portal and legal heirs should intimate to the assessing officer, about the death of the assessee. The legal heirs, also did not inform to the ld. PCIT during the revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act, about the death of the assessee. Instead of doing this, the legal heirs used to put the signature of that dead person, on the written submission, and used to file these written submission before the assessing officer and these legal heirs did not inform to the Income Tax Department, about death of the assessee. Hence, legal heirs, in these situation, could not take the advantage of death of the assessee, and therefore, the legal heirs have been completely misleading the Income Tax Department, by putting false signature of the dead person.

Therefore, in the light of the provisions of section 159(2)(b) of the Act, the ld.DR contended that the legal heirs of the assessee should register himself on the portal of the Income Tax Department and the legal heir should also intimate to the ld.Pr.CIT that the assessee has died on a particular date.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the submission of Ld DR for the revenue and noted that legal heirs of the assessee filed written submission, in the name of dead person, as if the dead person alive, before the assessing officer, vide written submission dated 20.03.2022. The legal heirs did not inform to the assessing officer nor inform to the Ld PCIT about the death of the assessee, and legal heirs used to file written submission before Income Tax Authorities, by putting signature of dead person on written submission, as if, the assessee is alive. This practice of legal heirs is not tenable in the eye of law.

The ld.DR stated that the case laws cited by the ld.Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Shri M. Hemanathan, Tax case appeal no. 199/2016, order dated 23.03.2016, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that Ld. PCIT was informed about the death of the assessee. In this case notice issued by Ld PCIT was returned back with endorsement of the postal Department that assessee has died. Despite of this, Ld PCIT passed order u/s 263 of the Act. In the case of Hiraben Babubhai Patel, in order dated 16.06.2023, the facts are different, in this case when the notice u/s 263 of the Act, dated 15.02.2019 was issued by the principal CIT, the assessee had already expired on 23.02.2018. Further, during the course of 263 Proceedings, this fact was brought to the notice of Ld. PCIT and a specific request was made to drop the 263 proceedings. Whereas, in assessee`s case, the legal heirs were filing written submission, in the name of dead person, and legal heirs signed the written submission in the signature of dead person. That is, legal heirs used to file the written submission by Shri Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi Vs. Pr.CIT (AY : 2015-16) 5 putting signature of dead person, as if person has not died and he is alive, but the fact was that assessee was died. Hence it is not a valid procedure adopted by the legal heirs. Therefore, the above case law cited by the ld.Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on these facts.

After hearing both the parties, we find merit in the submissions of learned DR for the revenue. Hence, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the ld.Pr.CIT with the direction to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee to register himself on the portal of the Income Tax Department and also communicate the ld.Pr.CIT in writing about the death of the assessee and participate in the revisionary proceedings, afresh, before the ld.Pr.CIT. We direct the Ld. PCIT to pass revision order under section 263 of the Act, after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the above terms.