Reassessment notice under Section 147 to deceased assessee held void; limitation strict, Sections 159 and 292B inapplicable.

HC held that a notice issued u/s 147 to a deceased assessee and, thereafter, to the spouse beyond the statutory limitation date of 31.03.2017 was void and without jurisdiction. The Department's lack of knowledge of the death could not extend the limitation period, as there is no statutory duty on legal representatives to intimate death or cancel PAN. Section 159 was inapplicable because no proceedings had been initiated while the assessee was alive. Section 292B could not cure a limitation defect, since limitation goes to jurisdiction. The reassessment proceedings were quashed and the matter decided against the revenue.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person and whether the petitioner, as the deceased's wife, can be compelled to participate in the proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Notice Issued in the Name of Deceased Person
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of her deceased husband, arguing that it was void and unenforceable as it was issued to a dead person. The petitioner's counsel relied on legal precedents, including the decision in CIT Vs. Amarchand N.Shroff, to support the claim that income tax assessment cannot be made in the name of a deceased person. The counsel also cited cases like Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs. ITO and Mrs. Kesar Devi Vs. CIT to emphasize that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a dead person is illegal. The court examined these arguments and held that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable in law, emphasizing that the defect in such a notice goes to the root of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act.

Issue 2: Compelling Petitioner to Participate in Proceedings
The Revenue argued that the notice issued in the deceased's name was valid as the petitioner did not report the death to the department and the PAN registration was not canceled. They contended that the notice was issued within the period of limitation and subsequently continued with the petitioner as the legal heir. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that a notice issued beyond the limitation period is a nullity and without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the legal principle dictates that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable in law, regardless of the department's knowledge of the death. The court referenced Section 292 of the Act and legal precedents like Vipin Walia to support the conclusion that the impugned notice was without jurisdiction and could not be enforced against the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court held that the impugned notice was wholly without jurisdiction and allowed the writ petition, quashing the proceedings. The judgment highlights the legal principle that notices issued in the name of deceased persons are unenforceable in law, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional integrity in tax assessment proceedings.

---