Case Law Details
Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: Notice under section 148 issued to a dead person could not be continued against the legal representatives and moreover, section 292B also could not be resorted to.
Held: Assessee had filed return of income for the assessment Year 2011-12 and the same was processed under section 143(1). Suddenly after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, AO issued the notice under section 148 on the email ID of the concerned Chartered Accountant (i.e. M/s. H.V.Vasa & Co.) for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration. In response thereto, the concerned CA vide email intimated AO that assessee (i.e. Anirudhhasinhji Mohobattsinhji Jadeja) had expired on 27.9.16 and hence, he pointed out his inability to represent a deceased person. Further he stated that such notice issued in the name of a deceased person was not accepted. AO asked to file the return of income in response to the impugned notice through the legal heir. CA of assessee had stated in the said notice that the return of income could be filed by the legal heir only after they had knowledge about the reasons for reopening since the legal heirs were unaware of the income of the deceased. AO issued another notice dated 25.6.18 under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee calling upon him to furnish certain further details and information, as specified therein. AO issued further notice dated 14.8.18 in the name of the ‘Urmilaben Aniruddhasinji Jadeja’ (i.e. legal heir of the deceased assessee) calling upon assessee to file return of income in response to notice issued under section 148. AO had supplied copy of reasons for reopening which recorded that the case of assessee had been reopened broadly on the count that certain payments made towards booking a plot had not been reflected in the return of income. AO had reason to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Assessee’s wife stated that the impugned notice under section 148 was bad, illegal, barred by limitation and without jurisdiction and therefore deserved to be quashed and set-aside in the larger interest of justice. It was held that the assessee’s wife could not be said to have participated in the proceedings in any manner. All that she did was, she informed AO that the notice was issued in the name of her husband who was already dead and gone. Such intimation to AO could not be termed as participating in the proceedings. The present case was not falling under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 159 and in such circumstances, the proceedings pursuant to the notice under section 148 issued to a dead person could not be continued against the legal representatives. Section 292B is specifically with regard to return of income, etc. which cannot be declared to be invalid on certain grounds. The purport of Section 292B of the Act is that in the event of any mistake, defect or omission in the notice or other proceedings, if the same is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act, the notice cannot be termed as invalid. A case in which notice was issued to a dead person could be termed as nullity. It was something like a safeguard passing a decree against a dead person which could not be executed through the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms.Mauna Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent waives service of notice of rule.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
