Court invalidates assessment order for deceased, directs redo in legal heir's name. Software update needed for posthumous filings.

The Court found the assessment order made in the name of a deceased individual to be invalid. It directed the Income Tax Department to redo the assessment in the name of the legal heir, the petitioner. The Court emphasized the need for the Department to update its software to handle posthumous filings by legal heirs. The assessment order against the deceased was deemed unsustainable, and the Court ordered a fresh assessment in the petitioner's name without expressing views on the case's merits. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to redo the assessment process, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order made in the name of a deceased person.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged an assessment order dated 28.12.2018 made in the name of a deceased individual, despite being filed posthumously. The petitioner, son and legal heir of the deceased, argued that the assessment order was a nullity due to this error. The respondent, the Income Tax Department, contended that the order was software-generated and could be rectified under Section 292-B of the IT Act. They also suggested the petitioner had an alternate remedy through a statutory appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT Appeals).

The Court considered the submissions and noted that the petitioner had withdrawn the statutory appeal based on the proceedings before the Court. Regarding the software issue raised by the Department, the Court emphasized the need for the Income Tax Department to update its software to accommodate situations where returns are filed posthumously by legal heirs. The Court then addressed the argument of a curable defect under Section 292-B of the IT Act, stating that the assessment order against a deceased person was not sustainable in law.

The Court concluded that the assessment order made in the name of the deceased individual was untenable. It ruled that the assessment should be redone in the name of the legal heir, the petitioner, in accordance with law and the merits of the returns filed. The Court clarified that setting aside the assessment order was solely based on the grounds of it being issued in the name of a deceased person, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The respondent was directed to redo the assessment after notifying the petitioner.

In the final judgment, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the directions to set aside the impugned assessment order and redo the assessment process with the petitioner properly identified. No costs were awarded, and all related petitions were closed.

---