TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued against a person, who died on 04.01.2024. 4. Specifically, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings ought to have been initiated only by issuing notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act to the deceased assessee during his lifetime or, alternatively, to his legal representatives such as the petitioner after the death of deceased assessee. 5. It is submitted that in the present case, a notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 31.03.2024, i.e., after the death of the assessee, namely, Selvarasu, who died on 04.01.2024. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d), the Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential Notice of Demand under Section 156 dated 17.02.2025 are liable to be interfered with. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in force during the period in dispute. It is submitted that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued at this distant point of time as mor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19) 414 ITR 286(Delhi). (2) Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, [2020] 420 ITR 256 (Bom). (3) Vanitha Gopal Shetty Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 26(1), made in W.P.No.19840/2019(T-IT) dated 05.07.2021.(Karnataka) 11. Arguing further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court referred to supra as Serial No. 3 to the above paragraph. A reference was made to the following passages: "21. As regards the contention of learned counsel- Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, seeking for remanding of the matter back for fresh consideration by the Assessing Authority by permitting de novo proceedings with respect to the same assessment year by rectifying the formal defect in notices issued, by placing reliance on the judgments referred in paragraph No.5 above, it ought to be noticed that no doubt in all the 3 orders relied upon by Sri.Sanmathi, learned counsel (Judgment dated 12.02.2018 passed in ITA No.100042/2017; Judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed in ITA No.877/2018 and the judgment in the case of St.Sudha Prasad v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax- MAN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 148 in terms of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the assessment order passed in the names of the petitioners enclosed at Annexure-E for the assessment year 2011-12 passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act is set aside. Consequent to setting aside of assessment order, demand notice, recovery notice and show cause notice issued pursuant thereto vide Annexures-F1, F2 and G respectively are also set aside." 12. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that proceedings have to be initiated either within a period of 3 years or 10 years depending upon the amount involved in the proceedings under Section 148. 13. It is submitted that the petitioner, as a legal representative of the deceased assessee, namely Late Mr.Selvarasu, has not given any intimation to the Department that the deceased assessee died on 04.01.2024. 14. It is further submitted that after responding to the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner participated in the proceedings, which thereafter culminated in the order dated 31.03.2024 und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 22. The mandate of Section 159(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes clear that when a person dies, his legal representative is liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. Section 159 reproduced above falls under Chapter XV- Liability in Special Cases. As per Section 159(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative, for the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1). 23. This stands further fortified by Section 159(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 24. Section 159(1) and Section 159(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are reproduced below: Section 159(1) Section 159(2) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the lik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner or other legal representatives. In fact, there are no records to indicate that after the deceased assessee died on 04.1.2024, the petitioner took steps to inform the Income Tax Department about the death of the deceased assessee. 32. Even if such an intimation was given, the assessment has to be made in the name of the deceased assessee and the liability, if any, is to be fastened on the legal representatives. 33. Therefore, it is not open for a legal representative to allege that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 was beyond the period of limitation under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act or that the assessment impugned, dated 17.02.2025, was beyond the period of limitation under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 34. At best, the petitioner can state that the deceased assessee was not liable to any tax as the petitioner or other legal heirs have not inherited any estate of the deceased and therefore the conclusions arrived in the impugned orders were incorrect. At best, an opportunity to explain the case can be granted to the petitioner, since there was a failure on the part of the petitioner or other legal representatives to inform the Departmen....