2025 (10) TMI 583 - AT - Income Tax

Section 263 order quashed for issuing notice to deceased without joining legal representative; Section 159 mandates proceedings against legal heir

Manjusha Anil Lodha, L/H of Late Anil Bansilal Lodha Versus PCIT, Nashik-1

ITAT PUNE quashed the PCIT's section 263 order because it was issued in the name of a deceased assessee without bringing the legal representative on ... Revision u/s 263 - order passed against a dead person - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned order is passed in the name of deceased assessee, we quash the order of the PCIT allowing the legal issue raised vide Grounds of appeal. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased assessee, without bringing the legal representative on record and issuing notices to the legal representative, is valid. 2. Whether proceedings under section 263 may be continued or concluded against a deceased assessee where the legal heir/legal representative had been registered and had participated in assessment proceedings as legal representative prior to the passing of the section 263 order. 3. Whether impugned remaining grounds challenging the merits of the section 263 order require adjudication after the fundamental jurisdictional defect (order in name of deceased) is established. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of section 263 order passed in the name of a deceased person Legal framework: Section 159 provides that on death of a person, proceedings pending against the deceased shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued from the stage at which they stood; the legal representative is to be treated as the assessee for purposes of the Act. No order can be validly passed against a dead person; departmental action must comply with Section 159 before passing orders. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on controlling judicial precedent from superior courts which have consistently held that notices or orders issued in the name of a deceased person are void and that proceedings must be continued against the legal representative. The judgment follows and applies these precedents to quash orders passed in the name of a deceased assessee. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the record and found the assessee had died before the impugned order was passed. Although the fact of death was recorded in the impugned order, the authority failed to bring the legal heir on record or issue notices to the legal representative yet proceeded to pass the section 263 order in the deceased's name. This undermines the statutory scheme under section 159 which mandates continuation of proceedings against legal representatives and precludes passing enforceable orders in the name of a dead person. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An order under section 263 passed in the name of a deceased person without issuing notices to or bringing on record the legal representative is invalid; the statutory scheme of section 159 must be complied with. Observations applying precedents are part of the operative reasoning endorsing quashing of such orders. Conclusion: The section 263 order passed in the name of the deceased is quashed for want of jurisdiction and non-compliance with Section 159; the authority could not validly pass the order without the legal representative being on record and served. Issue 2: Effect of prior registration/participation of legal heir on validity of proceedings Legal framework: Section 159 deems proceedings against the deceased as proceedings against the legal representative and contemplates continuance before passing any further orders. Administrative steps such as registration of legal heir and participation in assessment proceedings are relevant to identify the correct party and to satisfy procedural requisites. Precedent Treatment: Authorities have held that mere knowledge by revenue of the death or subsequent filings in the deceased's name do not cure the defect of issuing notices/orders in the name of a dead person; where the legal representative has been brought to the notice of the Department, proceedings must be directed at the legal representative. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the legal heir had been registered on the income-tax portal and had participated in assessment proceedings as legal representative. Despite that, the revisional order under section 263 was issued and passed in the name of the deceased without issuing notices to the legal representative. The Tribunal found this fatal to the validity of the order because statutory protection and procedural fairness under section 159 were not observed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Registration of a legal heir and participation in proceedings do not validate an order that is formally issued and passed in the name of the deceased; the Department must issue notices and bring the legal representative formally on record before passing orders. Conclusion: Prior registration and participation of the legal heir reinforce the requirement to proceed against the legal representative; absence of such formal action renders the section 263 order void. Issue 3: Necessity of adjudicating remaining merits where fundamental jurisdictional defect exists Legal framework: When a decision is vitiated by a fundamental jurisdictional defect (such as being passed in the name of a dead person), further adjudication on merits may be rendered academic unless and until valid proceedings are initiated against the proper party. Precedent Treatment: Courts and tribunals have declined to enter into merits where the primary defect relates to jurisdiction or invalidity of proceedings for non-compliance with procedural requirements concerning legal representatives. Interpretation and reasoning: Having quashed the impugned order on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal held that addressing the substantive grounds of revision would be academic and infructuous in the absence of valid proceedings against the legal representative. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Once an order is set aside for being passed in the name of a deceased person, adjudication on the substantive merits of that order is unnecessary at that stage; such adjudication awaits valid proceedings against the legal representative. Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to adjudicate the remaining grounds of challenge on merits as academic after quashing the section 263 order for jurisdictional infirmity. Overall Conclusion The impugned order under section 263 passed in the name of a deceased assessee without bringing the legal representative on record and issuing requisite notices is invalid and is quashed. Consequent adjudication of the substantive issues raised in the remaining grounds is held to be academic and therefore not undertaken.