Proceedings filed against a dead person need proper amendment and proven sufficient cause; delay is not condoned automatically.

A proceeding presented against a person already dead is not automatically validated by amendment or substitution of legal representatives. Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure may permit amendment in such a situation, but it does not remove the need to address limitation. Where delay arises in presenting the proceeding against the proper legal representatives, condonation under section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a formal showing of sufficient cause on the record after notice to the opposite party; it cannot follow mechanically or on an oral request. The proper course is to treat the memorandum as incompetent against the dead person and return it rather than proceed on automatic condonation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a proceeding under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, presented against a person already dead on the date of presentation can be amended by substituting legal representatives, and whether the resulting delay in presentation can be condoned as a matter of course or on oral request.

Analysis: The proceeding was instituted against a dead respondent, so the question was not ordinary substitution in an existing valid proceeding but whether the memorandum or case could be treated as properly presented only after amendment or fresh presentation. The Court treated section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as enabling amendment in such situations, but held that this did not dispense with the necessity of considering limitation. Condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was held to depend upon sufficient cause shown on the material on record, after notice to the opposite party, and not to follow automatically or merely on oral request. The earlier authorities relied upon did not justify treating delay as routinely excusable without a proper application and judicial satisfaction.

Conclusion: The proceeding could not be allowed to stand as filed against the dead respondent, and the delay in presenting it against the proper legal representatives was not to be condoned mechanically. The proper course was return of the memorandum as incompetent against a dead person.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to treat the proceeding as validly instituted and required it to be returned rather than proceeded with on amendment and automatic condonation.

Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding instituted against a person who was already dead is not automatically cured by amendment or substitution; where limitation is attracted, condonation of delay requires a formal judicial determination of sufficient cause after hearing the affected party.

---