Income-tax s.153C notice wrongly issued to deceased taxpayer; proceedings quashed as void despite claimed lack of knowledge.

A jurisdictional notice under Income-tax Act s.153C was issued to a deceased assessee. Applying the principle that proceedings initiated against a non-existent person are void, the HC held that a notice to a dead person is unenforceable and cannot be cured by Revenue's plea of lack of prior knowledge, particularly when the Department could still have issued a fresh notice to the legal heir within the prescribed limitation after learning of the death. Relying on SC authority that jurisdiction assumed against a non-existent entity is without jurisdiction, the HC quashed the impugned s.153C notice and held all consequential proceedings to be untenable in law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a deceased person.
2. Legal implications of issuing tax notices to a dead person.
3. Applicability of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to cure defects in notices issued to deceased persons.
4. Obligations of legal heirs to inform the tax department about the death of the assessee.
5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notices to deceased persons.
6. Interpretation of the term "person" under Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 153C to a Deceased Person:
The court examined whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a deceased person are sustainable in law. The court relied on the principle that a notice issued to a dead person is invalid. The legal heir of the deceased had informed the department about the death and requested to drop the proceedings. The court noted that the department could have issued a valid notice to the legal heir within the prescribed time period but failed to do so.

2. Legal Implications of Issuing Tax Notices to a Dead Person:
The court referred to previous judgments, including the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Income Tax Officer, which held that a notice issued to a dead person is not a mere technical defect but a jurisdictional defect, rendering the proceedings null and void. The court emphasized that the want of a valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment.

3. Applicability of Section 292B to Cure Defects in Notices Issued to Deceased Persons:
The court discussed the applicability of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, which states that no notice shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission if it is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act. However, the court concluded that a notice issued to a dead person is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act, and thus, Section 292B cannot cure such a defect.

4. Obligations of Legal Heirs to Inform the Tax Department About the Death of the Assessee:
The court addressed the argument that the legal heirs failed to inform the department about the death of the assessee and did not take steps to cancel the PAN registration. The court held that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives to immediately intimate the death of the assessee or cancel the PAN registration. The court cited the case of Alamelu Veerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, which supported this view.

5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in Issuing Notices to Deceased Persons:
The court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notices to deceased persons. The court concluded that the issuance of a notice to a dead person and the consequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and invalid. The court referred to the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, where the Supreme Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing entity is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

6. Interpretation of the Term "Person" Under Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court addressed the argument that the legal heir of the deceased would fall within the ambit of "body of individuals" under Section 2(31) of the Act. The court observed that the definition of "person" does not include the legal representatives of deceased persons. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham, which held that the definition of "person" under the General Clauses Act does not include legal representatives of deceased persons.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ application, holding that the impugned notice issued under Section 153C to a deceased person is invalid, and the further proceedings pursuant thereto are not tenable in law. The court quashed and set aside the impugned notice and the preliminary order. The connected writ applications were also allowed on the same grounds.

---