INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAISEN, RAISEN vs. LATE SUDHA AGRAWAL TH. L/H MANMOHAN AGRAWAL, RAISEN
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 22.06.2023 passed by
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn
arises out of assessment-order dated 07.12.2018 passed by ITO, Raisen
Page 1 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
[“AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year
[“AY”] 2016-17, the revenue has filed captioned appeal and the assessee has
filed captioned cross-objection.
The original assessee was ‘Smt. Sudha Agarwal’ who expired on
28.10.2016 and presently being represented by legal heir Shri Manmohan
Agarwal, husband of deceased assessee. The revenue/appellant originally
filed appeal-memo (Form No. 36) in the name of ‘Income-tax Officer, Raisen
Vs. Smt. Sudha Agarwal’ but subsequently filed revised appeal-memo in the
name of ‘Income-tax Officer, Raisen Vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agarwal (through
Legal Heir Shri Manmohan Agarwal)’. The revised form is taken on record.
The background facts leading to present matters are such that the
original assessee ‘Late Smt. Sudha Agarwal’ filed her return of AY 2016-17
on 12.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,89,800/- (with an
agricultural income of Rs. 1,06,052/-). The case of assessee was selected for
scrutiny-assessment vide notice dated 04.07.2017 u/s 143(2). Ultimately,
the AO passed assessment-order on 07.12.2018 assessing total income at
Rs. 2,56,62,810/- after making addition of long-term capital gain. Aggrieved,
the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and challenged AO’s order on
twin-counts of invalidity as well as merit. The CIT(A) decided assessee’s
appeal vide order dated 22.06.2023 allowing both claims of assessee and
thereby giving full relief. Now, the revenue has come in appeal and the
Page 2 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
assessee has come in cross-objection. The grounds taken by parties are as
under:
Revenue’s appeal:
(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred that the legal heir of the assessee has never intimated the department about the demise of the assessee Smt. Sudha Agrawal and participated in the proceedings without making objection of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the relief to the assessee on the facts that the assessee has purchased only a piece of land and invested the whole amount of capital gain in the said piece of land and did not invest in a residential property as per the requirement of the section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee’s Cross-Objection:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ground no.(i) of the Department’s appeal memo did not arise from the order of Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17, which is irrelevant, and deserves to be dismissed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fact of intimation about the death of Sadhna Agrawal is recorded in the order of Ld. CIT(A) at para no. 1.2 and para no. 6.3 which is not disputed by the department. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has decided the validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) and subsequent assessment under provisions of section 159 which is not disputed by the department. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has recorded in the order that the property was a residential plot, as stated in purchase deed (not a piece of land as stated in Ground No. (ii) which is false.)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in accepting exemption u/s 54F considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice.
Page 3 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
The above grounds raised by both sides are qua the validity/invalidity
of assessment as also on merits of addition. We would first take-up the
validity/invalidity issue which goes to the root of matter. While the revenue
claims that the CIT(A) has erred in holding the assessment-proceeding done
by AO as invalid, the assessee claims that the CIT(A) has passed a proper
order declaring the assessment-proceeding as invalid.
At first, we may take note of certain dates which would be relevant in
subsequent discussion:
(a) Date of filing ITR by assessee – 12.06.2016 (b) Date of death of assessee – 28.10.2016 (c) Date of notice u/s 143(2) – 04.07.2017 (d) Date on which the legal heir informed to AO about death of assessee: - As being claimed by legal heir – 15.09.2017 - As being claimed by revenue – 25.08.2023 (e) Date of assessment-order – 07.12.2018 6. Now, we extract the relevant portion of order passed by CIT(A) in this
regard:
Page 4 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 5 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 6 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 7 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 8 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 9 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 10 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Thus, the CIT(A) has noted these crucial facts in Para 6.3 of his order,
namely (i) the AO initiated scrutiny proceeding through notice u/s 143(2)
dated 04.07.2017 to the deceased assessee who had already expired on
28.10.2016, and (ii) the legal heir informed to AO about death of assessee on
15.09.2017 but the AO did not bring the legal heir on record and carried
assessment proceedings and completed assessment in the name of deceased
assessee. Ultimately, relying upon decision in Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai
Patel 413 ITR 276 dated 10.12.2018 (Guj HC), the CIT(A) accepted that
the notice dated 04.07.2017 u/s 143(2) issued by AO to a deceased person
was invalid and therefore the assessment-proceeding was null and void. The
CIT(A) has also made an observation that the factum of death of assessee
came to the knowledge of department on 15.09.2017 but still the
department did not re-initiate proceedings of scrutiny by bringing legal heir
on record.
Intimation of death of assessee:
So far as the intimation to AO/department regarding death of assessee is concerned, Ld. AR contended that the legal heir applied to AO/department on 15.09.2017 on designated e-filing portal and the AO/department approved legal heir’s request on 27.09.2017 after rigorous verification in terms of their procedure. Thus, the legal heir had informed the AO/Department about death of assessee on 15.09.2017 during assessment-proceeding itself. Ld. AR filed following document downloaded from e-filing webportal of Income-tax Department to show this:
Page 11 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 12 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the legal heir did not
inform the AO about death of assessee during assessment-proceeding.
In order to verify the rival claims of parties, the revenue was directed
to clarify the exact position from its record. In response, the AO filed report
dated 01.04.2024 accompanied by certain documents, the same are
scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:
Page 13 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 14 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 15 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 16 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 17 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Thus, in Para 4 of above report, the AO claims that the legal heir
requested to bring him on record for the first time vide letter dated
25.08.2023 and thereafter legal heir’s name was added in the ITBA system
on 07.11.2023 with the approval of Range head. Thereafter, in next para,
the AO has reported that he could not find any other document on record
regarding demise of assessee. In short, the AO claims that the assessee
informed to him on 25.08.2023.
Replying to revenue’s point, Ld. AR submitted that the true position is
different. He submitted that the legal heir made request to AO/department
as early as on 15.09.2017 immediately after receipt of notice dated
04.07.2017 u/s 143(2). The AO/Department noted certain defects in
assessee’s request like non-submission of death-certificate, etc. and
informed to legal heir in the e-filing portal. Thereafter, when the legal heir
removed defects, the AO/department approved legal heir’s request
immediately on 27.09.2017. During hearing, Ld. AR agreed to file some more
documents to show this entire exercise and after conclusion of hearing, filed
following documents:
Page 18 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 19 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Page 20 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Thus, Ld. AR submitted, the legal heir made intimation to
AO/department on 15.09.2017 itself. So far as the subsequent application
dated 25.08.2023 filed to AO is concerned, Ld. AR submitted that the same
was filed only to receive refund from income-tax department for AY 2016-17
under consideration after disposal of first-appeal on 22.06.2023 in favour of
assessee because otherwise the refund of assessee was not given. Ld. AR
submitted that alongwith request dated 25.08.2023, the legal heir also filed
will of the deceased assessee to demonstrate his entitlement to refund. The
above letter dated 07.11.2023 issued by the office of Addl. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Range-4, Bhopal is clearly acknowledging “…..Sh. Manmohan
Agrawal, husband of late Smt. Sudhar Agrawal who expired on 28.10.2016
vide application dated 25.08.2023 and 26.09.2023 and claimed refund for the
A.Y. 2016-17”. This way, Ld. AR showed that the application dated
25.08.2023 was a 2nd step undertaken by legal heir to obtain refund but the
fact remains that 1st intimation of death of assessee to AO/Department was
made as early as on 15.09.2017 approved by AO/department on
27.09.2017.
After a careful consideration of above submissions of parties, we agree
that the legal heir has intimated the AO/department on e-filing portal about
death of assessee on 15.09.2017.
Validity of assessment-proceeding:
Page 21 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Ld. DR for revenue contended that the legal heir has participated in
assessment-proceeding without raising any objection against the notices
issued by AO. Therefore, the legal heir has himself enabled the AO to make
assessment in the name of deceased assessee. In such a situation, the
CIT(A) is wrong in entertaining legal heir’s claim that the assessment-
proceeding is null and void. Therefore, the CIT(A)’s order must be set aside
and the AO’s order be upheld.
Per contra, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee ‘Late Smt. Sudha
Agrawal’ filed return on 12.09.2016 during her life time. Thereafter, she
expired on 28.10.2016. After her death, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) on
04.07.2017 to deceased assessee which ultimately culminated into passing
of assessment-order dated 07.12.2018. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A),
following the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Chandreshbhai
Jayantibhai Patel (supra), has rightly held that the notice issued to a
dead person is nullity. Therefore, in the first place, the notice u/s 143(2)
dated 04.07.2017 by which the AO had acquired jurisdiction to conduct
assessment-proceeding, was itself invalid. That apart, when a request was
made to the AO/department for addition of legal heir on 15.09.2017 which
request is approved also on 27.09.2017 and this entire exercise has
happened before expiry of time-limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2)
[admittedly, the time-limit was available upto 30.09.2017], the AO could
very well re-initiate proceeding on legal heir by re-issuing notice u/s 143(2)
in the name of legal heir in terms of section 159(2)(b) but that was also not
Page 22 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
done. Therefore, in the situation, the case of assessee is very much covered
by the decision in Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) relied by Ld.
CIT(A). Ld. AR pointed that section 159(2)(a) cannot help the revenue
because that section could be applied had the proceeding u/s 143(2) been
taken against deceased person before death, which is not the situation in
present case.
To support the above proposition, Ld. AR also relied upon Savita
Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi HC), relevant paras
are as under:
“THE SINE QUA NON FOR ACQUIRING JURISDICTION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHOULD BE ISSUED TO A CORRECT PERSON AND NOT TO A DEAD PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.
In the present case the notice dated 31st March, 2019 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the deceased assessee after the date of his death [ 21st December, 2018] and thus inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the present instance.
In the opinion of this Court the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is the foundation for reopening of an assessment. Consequently, the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. [See Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai & Ors., (2019) 2 TMI 1209 - Bombay High Court].
In Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2019 (1) TMI 353 - Gujarat High Court has also held, "the question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued against the deceased assessee can be said to be in conformity with or according to the intent and purposes of the Act. In this regard, it may be noted that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, and existence of a valid notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess under Section 147 of the Act. The want of valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment and thus, affects
Page 23 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
the validity of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment. A notice issued under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection." Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void.
ALSO, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS EVER ISSUED UPON THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PER SECTION 149(1)(b) OF THE ACT, 1961.
Also, no notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was ever issued to the petitioner during the period of limitation and simply proceedings were transferred to the PAN of the petitioner, who happens to be one of the four legal heirs of the deceased assessee vide letter dated 27 th December, 2019. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction qua the Petitioner for the relevant assessment year is beyond the period prescribed and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961.
In Smt. Sudha Prasad (supra) the petitioner had challenged the assessment order and demand notice only. Neither non-issuance of notice was challenged nor the issue of proceedings being barred by limitation was raised or decided. Consequently, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case and is therefore, of no help to the revenue.
AS IN THE PRESENT CASE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT INITIATED / PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS ALIVE AND AFTER HIS DEATH THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, SECTION 159 OF THE ACT, 1961 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE.
Section 159 of the Act, 1961 applies to a situation where proceedings are initiated / pending against the assessee when he is alive and after his death the legal representative steps into the shoes of the deceased assessee. Since that is not the present factual scenario, Section 159 of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case.
In Alamelu Veerappan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai, 2018 (6) TMI 760 - Madras High Court, it has been held by the Madras High Court, "In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether Section 159 of the Act would get attracted. The answer to this question would be in the negative, as the proceedings under Section 159 of the Act can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs. The factual position in the instant case being otherwise, the provisions of Section 159 of the Act have no application." In Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra), a Coordinate bench of this Court has held, "This court is of the opinion that the absence of any provision in the Act, to fasten revenue liability upon a deceased individual, in the absence of pending or previously instituted proceeding which is really what the present case is all about, renders fatal the effort of the revenue to impose the tax burden upon a legal representative."
THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION UPON LEGAL HEIRS TO INTIMATE THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE.
Page 24 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
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."
The judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) offers no assistance to the respondents. In Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 170 of the Act, 1961 (succession to business otherwise than on death) wherein notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961 was issued to non-existing company. In that case, Department by very nature of transaction was aware about the amalgamation. However, the said judgment nowhere states that there is an obligation upon the legal representative to inform the Income Tax Department about the death of the assessee or to surrender the PAN of the deceased assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"35. In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment.
Consequently, the legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the revenue.
SECTION 292B OF THE ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE VIZ-A-VIZ NOTICE ISSUED TO A DEAD PERSON IN RAJENDER KUMAR SEHGAL (SUPRA), CHANDRESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL (SUPRA) AND ALAMELU VEERAPPAN (SUPRA).
Page 25 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
This Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non- service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Consequently, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case.
In Skylight Hospitality (supra) notice was issued to Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. In that factual context, this Court had observed, "Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated April 11, 2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was relied and dealt with by them." The Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP had also observed "In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act."
In any event, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 has been held to be inapplicable viz- a-viz notice issued to a dead person in Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra), Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) and Alamelu Veerappan (supra). In all the aforesaid cases, the judgment of Skylight Hospitality (supra) had been cited by the revenue.
IN RAJENDER KUMAR SEHGAL (SUPRA) A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, 1961 IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSEE AND NOT TO A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
This Court is also of the view that Section 292BB of the Act, 1961 is applicable to an assessee and not to a legal representative. Further, in the present case one of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, i.e. the petitioner, had neither cooperated in the assessment proceedings nor filed return or waived the requirement of Section 148 of the Act, 1961 or submitted to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. She had merely uploaded the death certificate of the deceased assessee. In Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai Vs. Shri M. Hemanathan, 2016 (4) TMI 258 - Madras High Court it has been held "In the case on hand, the assessee was dead. It was the assessee's son, who appeared and perhaps cooperated. Therefore, the primary condition for the invocation of Section 292BB is absent in the case on hand. Section 292BB is in place to take care of contingencies where an assessee is put on notice of the initiation of proceedings, but who takes advantage of defective notices or defective service of notice on him. It is trite to point out that the purpose of issue of notice is to make the noticee aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of Section 292BB. It cannot be invoked in cases where the very initiation of proceedings is against a dead person. Hence, the second contention cannot also be upheld."
Even a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra) has held "If the original assessee had lived and later participated in the proceedings, then, by reason of Section 292BB, she would have been precluded from saying that no notice was factually served upon her. When the notice was issued in her name- when she was no longer of this world, it is inconceivable that she could have participated in the reassessment proceedings, (nor is that the revenue's case) to be estopped from contending that she did not receive it. The plain language of Section 292BB, in our opinion precludes its application, contrary to the revenue's argument."
Page 26 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Consequently, the applicability of Section 292BB of the Act, 1961 has been held to be attracted to an assessee and not to legal representatives.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the arguments advanced by the respondent are no longer res integra and have been consistently rejected by different High Courts including this jurisdictional Court. In view of consistent, uniform and settled position of law, to accept the submissions of the respondent would amount to unsettling the „settled law‟. In fact, in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), the Supreme Court speaking through Hon‟ble (Dr.) Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud has succinctly observed as under:-
"40. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable."
Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2019 and all consequential orders/proceedings passed/initiated thereto including orders dated 21st November, 2019 and 27th December, 2019 are quashed.”
Ld. AR submitted that it is also a settled law that participation by
assessee in illegal proceeding cannot validate the proceeding.
With above submissions, Ld. AR claimed that (i) the notice dated
04.07.2017 issued in the name of deceased person was invalid,
consequently the entire assessment-proceeding was also invalid and (ii) the
AO has passed final assessment-order dated 07.12.2018 in the name of
deceased assessee “Sudha Agarwal” and does not bear any reference of legal
heir even after information of death of assessee in AO’s knowledge, therefore
also the assessment-order is invalid.
Page 27 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the
case-record including the orders of lower-authorities in the light of judicial
decisions cited before us. We have already discussed the facts of case as
also the judicial rulings at length in foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, it
would be unnecessary to repeat the same. Suffice it to say that the AO
issued notice dated 04.07.2017 u/s 143(2) acquiring jurisdiction for
scrutiny-assessment on the ‘deceased assessee’ who had already expired on
28.10.2016, therefore the notice was invalid. The legal heir informed the AO
on 15.09.2017 about death of assessee, this intimation was before
30.09.2017 being the last date upto which notice u/s 143(2) could be re-
issued to legal heir but the AO did not issue any notice to the legal heir.
Therefore, on these facts, the assessment-proceeding done by AO has
become invalid as held in the decisions of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court and
Delhi Court cited above. Consequently, the CIT(A) was very much correct in
declaring the entire assessment-proceeding as null and void. We do not find
any error in CIT(A)’s order and uphold the same.
Since we have agreed with CIT(A) that the assessment-proceeding is
null and void, there is no necessity to go into other grounds of assessee’
cross-objection and revenue’s appeal. Those grounds are kept open
unadjudicated at this stage.
Page 28 of 29
ITO, Raisen vs. Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal (L/H: Manmohan Agarwal) ITA No. 281/Ind/2023 and C.O.No. 01/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2016-17
Resultantly, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-
objection is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 06/06/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore िदनांक / Dated : 06.06.2024 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 29 of 29
