Court upholds validity of notices to deceased under IT Act, binds settlement to all parties. Legal reps liable for penalties.

The court held that notices issued under section 148 of the IT Act to a deceased person were valid as they were addressed to the legal representatives. The court also found that the settlement reached by one legal representative was binding on all parties involved. Reassessment orders against the deceased were deemed valid as they were made in accordance with section 159 of the IT Act. Legal representatives were held liable for penalties imposed for inaccurate particulars furnished by the deceased. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the respondents and ordering costs against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued u/s 148 of the IT Act addressed to a deceased person.
2. Service of notice on all legal representatives.
3. Binding nature of settlement arrived at by one legal representative.
4. Validity of reassessment orders made against a deceased person.
5. Imposition of penalty on legal representatives for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notices Issued u/s 148:
The petitioner contended that the notices for reopening assessment were vitiated as they were addressed to a deceased person. The court held that u/s 159 of the IT Act, the ITO was competent to initiate proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased by issuing notices to them. The notices issued clearly indicated they were meant for the legal representatives of Shanker Lal Omar, thus complying with the provisions of s. 159.

2. Service of Notice on All Legal Representatives:
The petitioner argued that the notice was served only on one legal representative, Sheo Nath, and not on her, precluding her from participating in the proceedings. The court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this submission due to the subsequent findings.

3. Binding Nature of Settlement:
The petitioner claimed that the settlement arrived at between Sheo Nath and the Department was not binding on her. The court rejected this submission, stating that after jointly making the application for settlement, it was for the petitioner and her sons to pursue the matter. The fact that Sheo Nath attended the proceedings inferred he did so on behalf of all applicants, making the settlement binding on the petitioner.

4. Validity of Reassessment Orders:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment orders were void as they were made against a dead person. The court held that the reassessment orders described the assessee as "Late Shanker Lal Omar through L/H Sheo Nath," indicating the income of the deceased was being assessed in the hands of the legal heirs, in accordance with s. 159 of the IT Act.

5. Imposition of Penalty:
The petitioner argued that penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars could not be imposed on legal representatives. The court noted that s. 159 of the IT Act makes legal representatives liable for all sums the deceased would have been liable to pay, including penalties. Thus, penalty proceedings for defaults committed by the deceased could be continued against the legal representatives.

Conclusion:
All submissions made by the petitioner were found to be without merit. The petition was dismissed with costs.

---