Invalidity of Income Tax Notice to Deceased: Legal Representative Must Submit to Jurisdiction

The court held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a deceased person is invalid unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. In this case, as the legal representative did not waive the notice requirement or submit to jurisdiction, the notice was deemed invalid. The court emphasized that proceedings based on such invalid notices cannot be continued, quashing the notices and terminating the proceedings. The judgment clarified that notices to deceased persons without proper service to legal representatives do not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a deceased person.
2. Applicability of Section 159 and Section 292B of the Income Tax Act in the context of notices issued to deceased persons.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in continuing proceedings based on invalid notices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 to a Deceased Person:
The primary issue was whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a deceased person is valid. The court noted that the original assessee had expired on 22.11.2020, and the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021, addressed to the deceased assessee. The court cited the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, which established that a notice issued to a deceased person is invalid unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection. Since the legal representative in this case did not waive the requirement of notice under Section 148 and did not submit to the jurisdiction, the notice was deemed invalid.

2. Applicability of Section 159 and Section 292B of the Income Tax Act:
The court examined the provisions of Section 159, which deals with the liability of legal representatives, and Section 292B, which addresses procedural defects in notices. It was highlighted that Section 159(2)(b) allows proceedings to be initiated against the legal representative if the deceased had survived. However, since the notice under Section 148 was issued to the deceased and not to the legal representative, it was deemed invalid. The court also noted that Section 292B could not cure this defect as the notice was not in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. The court distinguished this case from others where legal representatives had participated in the proceedings, emphasizing that in this case, the legal representative had consistently objected to the validity of the notice.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The court concluded that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to continue proceedings based on an invalid notice. The legal representative had not submitted to the jurisdiction by filing a return in response to the notice. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer against the deceased assessee were not tenable in the eye of law and were required to be quashed and set aside.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned notices and terminating the consequential proceedings. The judgment emphasized that notices issued to deceased persons without proper issuance to legal representatives are invalid and do not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer.

---