Jurisdictional defect in tax proceedings against a deceased proprietor cannot be ignored by dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

Assessment and recovery proceedings under Section 73 could not validly be initiated and concluded against a deceased sole proprietor, because tax liability against a dead person must be pursued, if at all, against the legal representative after due notice and opportunity to respond. The jurisdictional defect went to the root of the matter and could not be cured by treating the appeal as barred by limitation. The appellate authority was required to address that foundational objection rather than reject the appeal solely on delay. Proceedings against the deceased proprietor were therefore unsustainable, and the limitation-based appellate order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment and recovery proceedings initiated under Section 73 against a deceased sole proprietor were sustainable, and whether the appellate authority could reject the appeal solely on limitation without addressing that foundational objection.

Analysis: The liability provisions relating to a deceased person do not authorise initiation and determination of tax proceedings against the dead person himself. Where the proprietor has died, the proper course is to proceed against the legal representative after due notice and opportunity of response. The earlier decision relied upon had already clarified that Section 93 governs liability of the legal representative but does not permit adjudication against the deceased. Since the entire proceedings were commenced and concluded against the deceased proprietor, the objection went to the root of the matter and could not be ignored merely because the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The appellate order therefore failed to address a substantive jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 73 against the deceased proprietor were unsustainable, and the order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---