TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Jean Baptiste Leroy. To tax the dead is a contradiction in terms. Tax laws are made by the living to tax the living. What survives the dead person is what is left behind in the form of such person's property" [Refer: Shabina Abraham & Ors. vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs MANU/SC/0801/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 770]. 1. The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are aptly quoted by us, as the same are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the respondents / Revenue proceeded with the assessment and passed the faceless assessment order against a dead person, who was the appellant's husband. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the learned Jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itiating penalty proceedings. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred WP.No.104 of 2022, which by order dated 06.01.2022, was dismissed, on the ground that the appellant has exercised the option of alternate remedy, which indeed is more efficacious remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appellant is before this court with this writ appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first respondent, ignoring the demise of the assessee and without looking into the documents furnished by the chartered accountant of the deceased, mechanically passed the assessment order dated 21.09.2021 in the name of the appellant's husband and made huge addition to the returned income and levied tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee had died. Further, the chartered accountant did not give the details of the legal heirs of the assessee so as to enable the first respondent to continue the proceedings against the legal heirs, but he merely mentioned that he was filing the response on behalf of the assessee. That apart, the order had to be passed on or before 31.09.2021 failing which the same would get barred by limitation. In such circumstances, due to inadvertent mistake, the first respondent passed the assessment order, which was impugned in the writ petition, against the dead person. In any event, as per section 159(2) of the Act, any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death, shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative(s) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the factum of death of the assessee, the first respondent mechanically passed the assessment order dated 21.09.2021 making huge addition stating that 'the response of the assessee has been perused but not found satisfactory' and the relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted below for ready reference: "With reference to DIN: ITBA/AST/F/144(SNC) (F) /2021- 22/1035588778(1) dated 15.09.2021 response is hereby submitted. The assessee (Mr.Nandkumar Krishnan) proprietor of M/s.Elektronik Lab has been affected by COVID during the month of April 2021 at the time of receipt of letter from IT department. But by the month of May, 2021, the assessee has passed away due to COVID hence the office was shut down. ..." Conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ petition in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or notice or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged' [See: Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1]. It is also trite law that 'if the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceeding, the mere fact that subsequent orders have been passed, would not render the challenge to jurisdiction infructuous' [Refer: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutt....