TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the aforesaid assessment order is dated 24.12.2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the "impugned assessment order". 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "impugned assessment order" prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the "impugned order" has partly allowed the 1st appeal on the grounds and reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee Yash Puranik Legal Heir of late Vinayak Puranik being aggrieved by the "impugned order" has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the "impugned order" which are as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147. The re-opening is bad in law and hence the assessment be annulled. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account of capital gains for sale of the house. The Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) further erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 54F and 54EC. The same may kindly be allowed and the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as capital gain may please be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative. Shri Vinayak Puranik the original assessee had died on 12.06.2017 and no notice u/s 148 of the Act was ever served on the legal heir of deceased i.e. Vinayak Puranik. Hence the initial notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.01.2018 itself is bad in law as it was issued to the deceased assessee after his death. (Original assessee had died on 12.06.2017). The Ld. AR then relied upon the decision of M.P High Court in case of Urmila Saxena V/s CBDT reported in (2024) 159 taxmann.com 64 (MP) wherein in para 14 it was held that reopening notice u/s 148 of the Act issued in the name of a dead assessee is null and void being without jurisdiction. The Ld. AR then relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Lalchand Verma V/s Union of India reported in (2025) 170 taxmann.com 825 (Delhi) wherein it was held that when factum of the death of the assessee is informed to the Income Tax Department and despite that no notice was issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 28.02.2018 (page 12 of paper book) the factum of death of the assessee was brought to the notice of ITO, Ward 3(2), Indore, M.P and a copy of death certificate of late Vinayak Puranik was also placed on record with reference to notice dated 30.01.2018 u/s 148 of the Act. Despite this factual position, the revenue on 30.03.2018 issues yet another notice (page 22 of paper book) once again on Shri Vinayak Puranik who was already dead and fact of his death was informed to the department vide letter dated 28.02.2018 (supra). We therefore hold both notice(s) dated 30.01.2018 & 30.03.2018 as nullity in the eyes of law as notice(s) was/were on a person not in the existence/living as having died as early as on 12.06.2017. 4.5 We also hold that while it is true that legal heir Vishesh Puranik participated in the assessment proceedings before Ld. A.O as reply dated 28.02.2018 (page 12 of paper book) was under his instructions by CA nevertheless it was incumbent upon the department to have issued at least the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018 (page 22 of paper book) on Vishvesh Puranik the legal heir which fact they could have easily ascertained from CA on record which depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only to a situation where proceedings are initiated/pending against the assessee when he/she is alive and after his/her death, proceedings are permitted to be continued as against the legal heirs. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Coporate Ward 2(2), Chennai reported in 2018 SCC Online Mad wherein it has been held as under: 18. In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether Section 159 of the Act would get attracted. The answer to this question would be in the negative, as the proceedings under Section 159 of the Act can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs. The factual position in the instant case being otherwise, the provisions of Section 159 of the Act have no application. 11. The issue which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is issued in the name of dead person i.e. Mrs. Amita Lalwani is enforceable in law. The fact that Mrs.....