TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued by the Ld. AR in support of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we have proceeded to deal with the same at the very threshold. 3. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the appellant filed original return of income on 22.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 209,13,750/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return filed by the assessee. In the said return of income the long term capital gain out of the sale of house property lying and situated at C169 Greater Kailash, New Delhi was disclosed. The computation of income declared a sale consideration of Rs. 275,00,000/- from said transaction. The original assessee Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta passed away on 02.10.2015 but thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2016 in the name of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta upon receipt whereof the son of the assessee requested the Ld. AO in writing on 19.04.2016 to drop the proceeding as the notice was a nullity having been issued in the name of the dead person. On the contrary the legal heir of the assessee was directed to file the return of income, whereupon the son of the assessee again reiterated the prayer of dropping of the proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR 194 (SC). He therefore, held the assumption of jurisdiction to be invalid and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee with the following observations: "6.7 The sum and substance of the above rulings is that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid notice. Further, in order to undertake proceedings in respect of a deceased person, his Legal Heirs need to be identified and notices are required to be served to such Legal Heirs, being deemed assessees, in their names and in their capacity as Legal Heirs of the deceased. The said notices are required to be served within the time- limitation prescribed. Moreover, as held by the Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (416 ITR 613), participation in proceedings by the appellant cannot operate as estoppel against law. It is also held by the Courts that notice to assume jurisdiction, such as notice u/s.148, when issued in respect of a dead person/non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in section 292BB. Here, it would be appropriate to mention that the Apex Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. [2022] 443 ITR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16) 382 ITR 19; judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Virappan vs. ITO, reported in 2018 (6) TMI 760. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, reported in 416 ITR 613 and in the case of Mahagun Realtors Private Limited, reported in(2022) 443 ITR 194(SC). In the absence of notice under Section 148 of the Act validly served either on the original assessee Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta when he was alive or on the deemed assessee being the legal heir of the assessee, the appellant before us renders the assumption of jurisdiction as invalid and therefore, liable to be quashed as prayed by the ld AR before us. 10. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record including the orders passed by the authorities below and the judgments relied upon. Under the present facts and circumstances of the matter it is evident that admittedly the original assessee passed away on 02.10.2015, therefore, no notice could have been served upon him in April 2016 and moreso the dead person could not file the return of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act, it could have been done so prior to 31 March, 2015 by issuing notice to the legal heirs of the deceased. Beyond that date it could not have proceeded in the matter even by issuing notice to the legal heirs of the assessee". Needless to mention that the fact of the above matter is identical to the case in hand before us and thus the judgment is found to be applicable here. 15. We find that in the case of PCIT versus Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(supra), it is held that participation in proceedings by the appellant cannot operate in estoppel against law. It was further held that notice to assume jurisdiction, such as notice under section 148 of the Act, when issued in respect of a dead person/non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292BB of the Act. In the case in hand the legal heir of the assessee before us duly objected to the notice being issued in the name of the deceased. However, it has been time and again decided as already narrated herein above that it is neither the obligation on the part of the legal heir of the assessee to bring it to the noti....