Invalidation of Assessment Reopening Notice for Deceased Person; Jurisdictional Defect; Quashed Assessment Proceedings

The Tribunal invalidated the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, citing that the notice issued to a deceased person was jurisdictionally defective. The Tribunal emphasized that such notice is invalid and cannot be protected by relevant sections of the Act. Due to improper service and invalid notice issuance, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings, ruling in favor of the appellants. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the case under Section 148.
2. Legality of issuing a notice under Section 148 to a deceased person.
3. Proper service of notice under Section 148.
4. Assessment of capital gains.
5. Adoption of sale consideration based on an alleged sale agreement.
6. Admission of additional grounds of appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Case Under Section 148:
The appeals question the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reopening was challenged on the grounds that the notice was issued in the name of a deceased person, rendering the proceedings void. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in ‘Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. ACIT’ and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in ‘Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vs. ITO,’ which held that a notice under Section 148 must be issued to a living person or the legal heir of a deceased person to be valid. Consequently, the Tribunal found the reopening of the assessment invalid.

2. Legality of Issuing a Notice Under Section 148 to a Deceased Person:
The Tribunal emphasized that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a deceased person is not a mere procedural error but a jurisdictional defect. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision, it was held that such a notice is invalid and cannot be protected by Sections 292B or 292BB of the Act. The Tribunal quashed the notice and the subsequent assessment proceedings, as the notice was issued to the deceased Shri Balbir Singh.

3. Proper Service of Notice Under Section 148:
The Tribunal scrutinized the service of notice, which was allegedly served through affixation. The Tribunal found that the notice was not served through registered post or any regular mode of service. The affixation was not witnessed by any independent person, and the Revenue officials did not verify the death of the original assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the service of notice was not valid, aligning with the requirement that the notice must be served to a living person or the legal heir.

4. Assessment of Capital Gains:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of assessing the 50% share of capital gain at Rs. 76,12,500/-. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary ground of invalid notice and improper service rendered the entire proceedings void.

5. Adoption of Sale Consideration Based on an Alleged Sale Agreement:
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer adopted the sale consideration based on an alleged sale agreement, which was contested by the assessee as unreliable. However, since the notice itself was invalid, the Tribunal did not need to rule on the reliability of the sale agreement.

6. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The Tribunal did not admit the additional ground of appeal, as the assessee's counsel did not press this ground. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. National Thermal Plant, which allows for the admission of additional grounds if they are legal and pertinent.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment proceedings due to the invalid issuance of notice to a deceased person and improper service of notice. Both appeals were allowed, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 13/05/2019.

---