TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 on the quantum and on the penalty respectively for the Assessment Year 2006-07. ITA No. 1639/Del/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment order came to be passed on 31/12/2007 against the Assessee represented by the legal heir Smt. Sunita Gupta, wherein the Ld. A.O. computed the income of the Assessee at Rs. 67,54,880/- as against the returned income of Rs. 4,12,150/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/12/2007, the legal heirs of the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/01/2010, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20/01/2020,the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. Apart from raisin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma through legal heir vs. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) 8184/2023 dated 08.01.2025. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee has filed the Additional Grounds of Appeal after lapse of several years and the said ground has not been raised before any of the Lower Authorities or before this Tribunal at the time of filing the present Appeal. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that, though the notice has been addressed to the Assessee, the said notice has been duly served to the legal representative of the Assessee and based on the service of the said notice, the legal heir of the Assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and the Department has quantified the proper tax payab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t declared income of Rs. 4,12,150/-. Since as on the date of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the Assessee Smt. Sunita Gupta was no more, therefore, the said notice issued 143 (2) of the Act cannot be construed to have been served on the Assessee. Since the said notice has been issued against the dead person, the same has to be treated as non-est. The legislature while drafting the income tax Act, provided the procedure to be followed in the case of death of the Assessee in Chapter XV under and Section 159 (1)(b) of the Act contemplates that any proceedings which could have been taken against the deceased if he survived, may be taken against the legal representative. Admittedly, in the present case, the A.O. has not issued any noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that case, Department by very nature of transaction was aware about the amalgamation. However, the said judgment nowhere states that there is an obligation upon the legal representative to inform the Income Tax Department about the death of the assessee or to surrender the PAN of the deceased assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "35. In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 39.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 does not apply to the present case. 36. In Skylight Hospitality (supra) notice was issued to Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. In that factual context, this Court had observed, "Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated April 11, 2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was relied and dealt with by them." The Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP had also observed "In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of contingencies where an assessee is put on notice of the initiation of proceedings, but who takes advantage of defective notices or defective service of notice on him. It is trite to point out that the purpose of issue of notice is to make the noticee aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of Section 292BB. It cannot be invoked in cases where the very initiation of proceedings is against a dead person. Hence, the second contention cannot also be upheld." Further similar ratio has been laid down in flowing judicial pronouncements "i....