Court Invalidates Revenue's Actions in Deceased Taxpayer's Name

The court found the revenue's procedure flawed in issuing notices in the deceased taxpayer's name despite being informed of her demise, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid. The court held that all actions taken in the deceased taxpayer's name post her demise, including the assessment order, were invalid. The writ petition was allowed, and related petitions were closed without costs, emphasizing the invalidity of the assessment order and proceedings due to the revenue authorities' flawed process.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13 based on the demise of the taxpayer and subsequent communication issues.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 21.12.2019 under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13, filed as a legal representative of the deceased taxpayer, K.Mangalam.

2. The sequence of events involved notices issued post the demise of K.Mangalam, including a notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2017, communication on 27.07.2017, a second notice under Section 148 dated 25.03.2019, and subsequent reminders.

3. The petitioner, as the legal representative, informed the Assessing Officer of K.Mangalam's demise multiple times, including a letter dated 19.12.2019. However, the assessment order was passed on 17.12.2019 in the name of the petitioner as the legal heir, disregarding the petitioner's objections.

4. The court found the revenue's procedure flawed as notices were issued in the deceased taxpayer's name despite being informed of her demise, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid. The second notice dated 20.06.2019 was issued to K.Mangalam post her demise, indicating a lapse in the assessment process.

5. The respondent's counter affidavit did not dispute the lack of awareness regarding K.Mangalam's demise, further strengthening the petitioner's case. The absence of an acknowledgment from the Assessing Officer was deemed immaterial given the lack of denial in the counter affidavit.

6. The court held that all proceedings initiated in K.Mangalam's name post her demise, including the assessment order, were invalid. The intimation of her death submitted by the petitioner was considered to be within the Assessing Officer's knowledge, making subsequent actions in her name unjustified.

7. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs, emphasizing the invalidity of the assessment order and related proceedings due to the flawed process followed by the revenue authorities.

---