TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jain. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was issued two PAN nos. namely PAN No. ADPPJ6930L and PAN No. ACRPJ0286A, which was also intimated to the Revenue vide letter dated 28.02.2014. Vide aforenoted letter, the assessee informed the Revenue that from the AY 2009-10, the assessee was filing his Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on PAN no. ACRPJ0286A (hereinafter referred to as "new PAN") and had requested the Revenue to cancel his other PAN No. ADPPJ6930L (hereinafter referred to as "old PAN"). 3. On 09.02.2019, the assessee expired and thereafter vide notices dated 31.03.2021 and 19.04.2021, the Revenue sought to initiate the proceedings in the case of the assessee under the old PAN as well as the new PAN respectively for AY 2013-14. 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a reply vide letter dated 25.03.2022 and intimated the Revenue that the notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued in the name of a dead person and the action was sought to be initiated on the old PAN. 5. Thereafter, the Revenue proceeded to investigate further and on 31.03.2022, an assessment order was passed in the case of the old PAN and on 20.07.2022, an order was passed under Section 148A(d) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi regarding receipt of interest income to the tune of Rs. 9,14,265/- and the assessee had not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the IT Act after recording reasons u/s 148 (2) of the IT Act. Noticed u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2017 and was duly served upon the assessee. 2. In response to the notice, AR of the assessee filed his submission vide reply dated 08.09.2017 stating that the assessee was allotted two PANs and TDS was erroneously deducted on the PAN which is not being used by the assessee. Further, the assessee has also submitted with supporting evidence that the whole amount of interest which is in dispute has already been accounted for and disclosed truly on the retained PAN-ACRPJ0286A. In support to his submission the assessee has submitted copy of bank statement showing the receipt of interest, confirmation from the bank, copy of ledger and return of income. The assessee has also submitted an affidavit stating that said amount of interest has already been accounted for and due taxes have already been paid. The facts have been duly verified from the information available on AST. 3. Since the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, penalty for de-duplication of PAN u/s 272B is being initiated separately." 13. In light of the abovementioned undisputed position of facts and the Revenue's consistent stand in the case of the assessee for previous AYs, we now proceed to examine the challenge that stands raised before us. 14. We note the pertinent observations of this Court in the case of Savita Kapila v. Asst. CIT (supra), wherein, while dealing with the identical question, it has been held that the pre-requisite of issuing a notice in the name of the correct person and not in the name of a dead person is sine qua non for acquiring the jurisdiction and initiating the action under Section 148 of the Act. The Court while setting aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to a dead person held as follows:- "25. In the present case the notice dated March 31, 2019 under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the deceased-assessee after the date of his death (December 21, 2018) and thus inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under section 148 of the Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the present instance. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction qua the petitioner for the relevant assessment year is beyond the period prescribed and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation in accordance with section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. 29. As in the present case proceedings were not initiated/pending against the assessee when he was alive and after his death the legal representative did not step into the shoes of the deceased-assessee, section 159 of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case. *** 32. This court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the Income-tax Department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased- assessee or the deceased-assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether PAN record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu Veerappan (supra) it has been held "nothing has been placed before this court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case." 15. The above noted settled position of law was also followed in the decision of this Court in the case of Vikram Bhatnagar v. CIT (supra), wherein this Court while dealing with the identical questions held as follows:- "11. In the present case as admitted by the Respondent the facts are admitted. The death of the Assessee was duly communicated by his legal heirs (the Petitioner herein). The ITR also duly disclosed that the same has been filed by the legal representative. However, in ignorance of the said facts available on the record the scrutiny proceedings have been wrongly conducted in the name of the deceased Assessee without bringing on record all his legal heirs as per the requirement of law. 12. In the present case, the jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued against the dead person and the assessment order has also been passed against the dead person on his PAN without bringing on record all his legal representatives, therefore, the said assessment order and the subsequent notices are null and void and are liable to be set aside. 13. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 22n....