SHRI TARSEM SINGH GILL SON & LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI TARLOK SINGH GILL ( DECEASED), HOSHIARPUR V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

ITA 24/ASR/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Tarsem Singh Gill, the legal heir of the deceased Sh. Tarlok Singh Gill, against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1, which was passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal contested the legality of a show cause notice and the subsequent order, both issued in the name of the deceased. The Tribunal found that issuing a notice to a deceased person is non-est (invalid) and not in accordance with the law, leading to the quashing of the order under Section 263.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114585 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2030
• Other Referred Cases: Sheela Devi (wife of legal heir Vas Dev) vs. Pr. CIT, Dharamraj vs. ITO, Savita Kapila vs. A CIT, Alamelu Veerappan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajinder Kumar Sehgal vs. CIT, Chandresh Bhai Jayanthi Bhai Patel vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 24/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Tarsem Singh Gill, Son & legal heir of Sh. Tarlok Singh Gill (Deceased) VPO Fatehpur Kalan, Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur, (Punjab) [PAN: AUSPG 0483F] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 08.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2021 passed by the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar- 1 in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-12. ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, notice issued u/s 263 of the Act is illegal & bad in law since notice was issued in the name of dead person and consequent order passed u/s 263 of the Act in the name of dead person is also illegal and bad in law. 2. That order u/s 263 of the Act, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-l (‘Ld. CIT’), is illegal & without jurisdiction since notice u/s 263 of the Act has never been served on the assessee. Assessee died on 24.01.2020 whereas show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act is dated 19.03.2021. 3. That without prejudice to our grounds of appeal no. 1 & 2 even otherwise also order passed u/s 263 of the Act is against principles of natural justice since show cause notice dated 19.03.2021 was issued through speed post fixing the case for 23.03.2021, as such giving one clear day notice to assessee. Only one clear day notice to assessee to reply show cause notice itself makes the order passed illegal and bad in law. 4. That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-l (‘Ld. CIT’) has grossly erred in holding that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 (‘Ld. CIT’) in invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act is illegal & bad in law. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 (‘Ld. CIT’) has grossly erred in law in holding that Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without carrying out necessary verification regarding source of cash deposit in the bank account. 6. That order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-l (‘Ld. CIT’) is illegal and bad in law since proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act on the issue of taxability of Rs. 88,64,100/- deposited in the bank account were completed by the Assessing Officer by accepting the explanation filed by the assessee, which clearly implies that Assessing Officer has applied his mind at the time of assessment proceedings and necessary verification of source of cash deposited in the bank account has been carried out. ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 3 7. That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-l (‘Ld. CIT’) u/s 263 is arbitrary, unjust, is based on assumptions & presumptions since no error existed or prejudice was caused to revenue, therefore, the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-l(‘Ld. CIT’) passed u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. 8. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 (‘Ld. CIT’) has grossly erred in setting aside the assessment framed with the directions to pass fresh order after making necessary enquiries/investigation in the light of discussion made above. Non-issuance of specific directions for assessment to be framed clearly proves that it is a case of only change of opinion and the assessment framed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. A proposed ground no. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of the show cause notice issued and order passed u/s 263 of the Act as illegal and bad in law since the show cause notice was issued in the name of the deceased person. 4. In the present case, the assessee died on 24.01.2020 as per death certificate (APB, Pg. 20) and the show cause notice vide letter no. 3225 dated 19.03.2021 was issued u/s 263 to the deceased person Sh. Tarlok Singh Gill instead of its legal heirs. The ld. counsel argued that the show cause notice issued in the name of deceased person is non-est, and thus liable to be quashed. The counsel has taken an alternative plea that a notice issued in the name of deceased person and never be claimed to ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 4 have served on the assessee. The ld. AR contended that it is a settled law that a notice required to be issued in name of the assessee is served upon him and not on the dead person. There was no statutory requirement imposing the obligation upon legal heirs to intimate, death of the assessee and that the provisions of section 292B of the Act are held to be inapplicable vis-à-vis notice issued to a dead person. In support he placed reliance on the order of the ITAT of Delhi Bench in the case of Sheela Devi (wife of legal heir Vas Dev) vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 1853/DEL/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 dated 03.03.2022. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: “6 .1 Fi rst ly, it w a s co n t e n d e d th a t th e a sse sse e , na me l y, V a s De v e xp ire d o n 0 4 .1 2 .2 0 2 0 w h e re a s th e s h o w ca u se d a te d 2 0 .0 3 .2 0 2 1 h a s b e e n is su e d a n d a d d re sse d to th e d e ce a se d -a s se ss e e , n a me l y, V a s De v in ste a d o f le g a l h e ir. It w a s th u s co n te n d ed th a t th e sh o w ca u se n o tice issu e d in th e n a me o f a d e ce a se d p e rson i s n o n e st a n d th u s lia b le to b e q u a sh e d a t th e th re sh o ld . Fo r th is p ro p o sitio n , th e Id . co u n se l fo r th e a sse sse e ve h e me n tly re fe r re d to th e ju d g me n t re n d e re d b y th e H o n ’b le De lh i Hig h Co u rt in th e ca se o f Dh a ra mra j vs. I TO , W P ( C) 9 2 2 7 /2 0 2 1 d a te d 1 7 .1 0 .2 0 2 2 a n d S a vit a K a p ila vs . A CIT W P (C ) N o .3 2 5 8 /2 0 2 0 ju d g me n t d a te d 1 6 .0 7 .2 0 2 0 ; (i i) se co n d ly, sh o w ca u se n o tice w a s i ssu e d in it ia l ly o n 2 0 .0 3 .2 0 2 1 a skin g th e a sse sse e to a p p e a r o n 0 5 . 0 4 .2 0 2 1 , i.e ., a fte r th e e xp i ry o f th e li mita t io n o n 3 1 .0 3 .2 0 2 1 . Ho w e ve r, th e a fo resa id sh o w ca u se n o tice w a s la te r m o d ifie d a n d th e f re sh n o ti ce d a ted 2 5 . 0 3 .2 0 2 1 w a s issu e d th ro u g h e - ma i l a n d th e ma tte r w a s fixe d fo r h e a rin g o n th e i mme d ia te n e xt d a t e o n 2 6 .0 3 .2 0 2 1 in g ra ve vio la tion o f p rin c ip le o f n a tu ra l ju sti ce . T h e re w a s n o p a rtic ip a tio n o n b e h alf o f th e d e ce a se d -a s se sse e in th e p ro ce e d in g s a n d n o fu rth e r o p p o rtu n it y w a s g ive n to th e a sse sse e / le g a l h e ir to d e fe n d h is ca se . Th e re vi sio n a l o rd e r w a s su mma ri ly p a s s e d o n 2 8 .0 3 .2 0 2 1 w h e re b y th e ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 5 a sse ss me n t o rd e r in q u e stio n a n d th e re vi sio n w a s se t a sid e fo r fre sh co n sid e ra t io n . It w a s su b mitt e d b y th e Id . cou n se l fo r th e a sse sse e th a t th e re vi sio n a l o rd e r i s n o t su s ta in a ble in la w in th e a b se n ce o f ma n d a to ry re q u i re me n t o f o p p o rtu n it y e n sh rin e d in S e ctio n 2 6 3 itse l f . It w a s th u s u rg e d fo r ca n ce lla ti o n o f the re vi sio n a l o rd e r p a sse d u n d e r S e ctio n 2 6 3 o f th e A ct in q u e stio n . 7 . L d . S r. D R, o n th e o th e r h a n d , re lie d u p o n th e co n te n ts o f th e re vi sio n a l o rd e r. 8 . W e h a ve h e a rd th e riva l su b miss io n s a n d p e ru se d th e ma te ria l p la ce d b e fo re u s a n d ca se la w s cite d . Fi rst ly , w e co n s id e r i t e xp e d ie n t to a d d re ss o u rse l ve s o n le g a lit y o f sh o w ca u se n o tice a n d co n se q u e n t re v is io n a l o rd e r p a sse d u n d e r S e ct io n 2 63 o f th e A ct. Th e i ssu e o f va l id i ty o f a n o t ice a n d p ro ce e d in g s he ld su b se q u e n t th e re to a g a in st a d e a d p e rso n is n o l o n g e r re s in teg ra . Th e Ho n ’b le De lh i Hig h Co u rt in th e ca se o f Dh a ra mra j v s. ITO (su p ra ) h a s e xa min e d th e issu e in le n g th a n d h e ld th a t th e n o tice i ss u e d a g a in st a d e a th p e rso n is n u ll a n d vo id a n d a ll co n se q u e n t p ro ce e d in g s/o rd e rs b e in g e q u a lly ta in te d a re lia b le to b e se t a s id e . Th e re le va n t o p e ra tive p a ra g ra p h in D h a ra mra j ’s ca se is re p ro d u ce d h e re in fo r th e sa ke o f co mp le te n e ss o f th e p o in t. 8 . T h e is s u e o f v a l id it y o f a n o t ic e a n d p r o c e e d i n gs h e ld s u b s e q u e n t t h e r e t o a g a in s t a d e a d p e r s o n is n o lo n ge r r e s i n t e g r a . T h i s C o u r t in S a v it a K a p i la v s . A s s is t a n t C o m m i s s i on e r o f I n c o m e - T a x , in W . P . ( C ) N o . 3 2 5 8 / 2 0 2 0 h a s h e ld a s u n d e r : " A N A L T E R N A T I V E S T A T U T O R Y R E ME D Y D O E S N O T O P E R A T E A S A B A R T O M A I N T A I N A B I L I T Y O F A W R I T P E T I T I O N W H E RE T H E O R D E R O R N O T I C E O R P R O C E E D I N G S A R E W H O L L Y W I T H O U T J U R I S D I C T I O N . I F T H E A S S E S S I N G O F F I C E R H A D N O J U R I S D I C T I O N T O I N I T I A T E A S S E S S M E N T P R O C E E D I N G S . T H E M E R E F A C T T H A T S U B S E Q U E N T O R D E R S H A V E B E E N P A S S E D W O U L D N O T R E N D E R T H E C H A L L E N G E T O J U R I S D I C T I O N I N F R U C T U O U S . 2 4 . F u r t h e r , t h e f a c t t h a t a n a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r h a s b e e n p a s s e d a n d it is o p e n t o c h a l le n g e b y w a y o f a n a p p e a l, d oe s n o t d e n u d e t h e p e t it io n e r o f it s r ig h t t o c h a l le n g e t h e n o t ic e f o r a s s e s s m e n t if it is w it h o u t ju r is d ic t io n . I f t h e a s s u m p t io n o f ju r isd ic t io n i s w r o n g , t h e ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 6 a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r p a s s e d s u b s e q u e n t w o u ld h a v e n o leg s t o s t a n d . I f t h e n o t ic e g o e s , s o d o e s t h e o r d e r o f a s s e s s m e n t. I t is t r it e la w t h a t if t h e A s s e s s in g O f f ic e r h a d n o ju r i s d ic t i o n to i n it ia t e a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e e d in g , t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t s u b s e q u e nt o r d e r s h a v e b e e n p a s s e d w o u l d n o t r e n d e r t h e c h a l le n g e t o j u r i sd ic t io n in f r u c t u o u s . x x x x x T H E S I N E Q U A N O N F O R A C Q U I R I N G J U R I S D I C T I O N T O R E O P E N A N A S S E S S ME N T I S T H A T N O T I C E U N D E R S E C T I O N 1 4 8 S H O U L D B E I S S U E D T O A C O R R E C T P E R S O N A N D N O T T O A D E A D P E R S O N . C O N S E Q U E N T L Y . T H E J U R I S D I C T I O N A L R E Q U I R E ME N T U N D E R S E C T I O N 1 4 8 O F T H E A C T . 1 9 6 1 O F S E R V I C E O F N O T I C E W A S N O T F U L F I L L E D I N T H E P R E S E N T I N S T A N C E . x x x x x 2 6 . I n t h e o p in io n o f t h i s C o u r t t h e is s u a n c e o f a n o t ic e u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 4 8 o f t h e A c t is t h e f o u n d a t io n f o r r e o p e ni n g o f a n a s s e s s m e n t . C o n s e q u e n t ly , t h e s in e q u a n o n f o r a c q uir in g ju r is d ic t i o n t o r e o p e n a n a s s e s s m e n t is t h a t s u c h no t ic e s h o u ld b e is s u e d in t h e n a m e o f t h e c o r r e c t p e r s o n . T h is r e q uir e m e n t o f is s u in g n o t ic e t o a c o r r e c t p e r s o n a n d n o t t o a d e ad p e r s o n is n o t m e r e ly a p r o c e d u r a l r e q u ir e m e n t b u t is a c o n d it i o n p r e c e d e n t t o t h e im p u g n e d n o t i c e b e i n g v a li d i n l a w . [ S e e S u m it B a l kr is h n a G u p t a v. A s s t C o m m is s io n e r o f I n c o m e T a x , C ir c le 1 6 ( 2 ) , Mu m ba i & O r s . , ( 2 0 1 9 ) 2 T MI 1 2 0 9 - B o m b a y H ig h C o u r t ] , 2 7 . x x x x x C o n s e q u e n t ly , in v ie w o f t h e a b o v e , a r e op e n in g n o t ic e u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 4 8 o f t h e A c t , 1 9 6 1 is s u e d i n t h e n am e o f a d e c e a s e d a s s e s s e e i s n u l l a n d v o id . X X X X . X X A S I N T H E P R E S E N T C A S E P R O C E E D I N G S W E R E N O T I N I T I A T E D / P E N D I N G A G A I N S T T H E A S S E S S E E W H E N H E WAS A L I V E A N D A F T E R H I S D E A T H T H E L E G A L R E P R E S E N T A T I V E D I D N O T S T E P I N T O T H E S H O E S O F T H E D E C E A S E D A S S E S S E E . S E C T I O N 1 5 9 O F T H E A C T . 1 9 6 1 D O E S N O T A P PL Y T O T H E P R E S E N T C A S E . 3 0 . S e c t io n 1 5 9 o f t h e A c t , 1 9 6 1 a p p li e s t o a s it u at i o n w h e r e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e i n it i a t e d / p e n d in g a g a in s t t h e a s s e ss e e w h e n h e is ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 7 a l iv e a n d a f t e r h i s d e a t h t h e le g a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s t e p s i n t o t h e s h o e s o f t h e d e c e a s e d a s s e s s e e . S i n c e t h a t is n o t th e p r e s e n t f a c t u a l s c e n a r io , S e c t io n 1 5 9 o f t h e A c t , 1 9 6 1 d o e s n o t a p p ly t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . 3 1 . x x x x x T H E R E I S N O S T A T U T O R Y R E Q U I R E ME N T I M P O S I N G A N O B L I G A T I O N U P O N L E G A L H E I R S T O I N T I M A T E T H E D E A T H OF T H E A S S E S S E E . 3 2 . T h i s C o u r t i s o f t h e v ie w t h a t in t h e a b s e n c e of a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n it is d if f ic u lt t o c a s t a d u t y u p o n t h e le g a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s t o in t im a t e t h e f a c t u m o f d e a t h o f a n a s s e s s e e t o th e in c o m e t a x d e p a r t m e n t . A f t e r a l l, t h e r e m a y b e c a s e s w h e r e t h e le g a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s a r e e s t r a n g e d f r o m t h e d e c e a s e d a s se s s e e o r t h e d e c e a s e d a s s e s s e e m a y h a v e b e q u e a t h e d h is e n t ir e w ea lt h t o a c h a r it y . C o n s e q u e n t l y , w h e t h e r P A N r e c o r d w a s u p d a te d o r n o t o r w h e t h e r t h e D e p a r t m e n t w a s m a d e a w a r e b y t h e le g a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o r n o t is ir r e le v a n t . I n A la m e lu V ee r a p p a n ( s u p r a ) [ 2 0 1 8 ( 6 ) T MI 7 6 0 - Ma d r a s H ig h C o u r t ] it h a s b e e n h e ld " n o t h in g h a s b e e n p l a c e d b e f o r e t h is C o u r t b y t h e R e v e n u e t o s h o w t h at t h e r e i s a s t a t u t o r y o b l ig a t io n o n t h e p a r t o f t h e le g a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f t h e d e c e a s e d a s s e s s e e t o im m e d iat e ly in t im a t e t h e d e a t h o f t h e a s s e s s e e o r t a k e s t e p s t o c a n c e l th e P A N r e g is t r a t io n . ” x x x x x 3 4 . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e le g a l h e ir s a r e u n d e r n o s t a tu t o r y o b l ig a t io n t o i n t im a t e t h e d e a t h o f t h e a s s e s s e e t o t h e R e v e n u e . S E C T I O N 2 9 2 B O F T H E A C T 1 9 6 1 H A S B E E N H E L D T O B E I N A P P L I C A B L E . V I S - A - V I S . N O T I C E I S S U E D T O A D E A D P E R S O N I N R A J E N D E R K U M A R S E H G A L 1 2 0 1 8 ( 1 2 ) T MI 6 9 7 ( D E L H I ) ] . C H A N D R E S H B H A I J A Y A N T I B H A I P A T E L 1 2 0 1 9 ( I ) T MI 3 5 3 - G U J A R A T H I G H C O U R T 1 A N D A L A M E L U V E E R A P P A N f 2 0 1 8 ( 6 ) T MI 7 6 0 - MA D R A S H I G H C O U R T 1 . 3 5 . T h i s C o u r t i s o f t h e o p in io n t h a t is s u a n c e o f no t ic e u p o n a d e a d p e r s o n a n d n o n - s e r v i c e o f n o t ic e d o e s n o t c o m e u n d e r t h e a m b it o f m is t a k e , d e f e c t o r o m is s io n . C o n s e q u e n t ly , S e c t io n 2 9 2 B o f t h e A c t , 1 9 6 1 d o e s n o t a p p ly t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e. ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 8 I N R A J I N D E R K U MA R S E H G A L ( S U P R A ) A C O O R D I N A T E B E N C H O F T H I S C O U R T H A S H E L D T H A T S E C T I O N 2 9 2 B B O F T H E A CT 1 9 6 1 I S A P P L I C A B L E T O A N A S S E S S E E A N D N O T T O A L E G AL R E P R E S E N T A T I V E . 3 8 . T h i s C o u r t is a ls o o f t h e v ie w t h a t S e c t io n 2 9 2B B o f t h e A c t , 1 9 6 1 is a p p l ic a b l e t o a n a s s e s s e e a n d n o t t o a le g al r e p r e s e n t a t iv e . F u r t h e r , in t h e p r e s e n t c a s e o n e o f t h e l e g a l h e ir s o f t h e d e c e a s e d a s s e s s e e , i. e . t h e p e t it io n e r , h a d n e it h e r c o o p e r a t e d in t h e a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e e d in g s n o r f il e d r e t u r n o r w a iv e d t h e r e q u ir e m e n t o f S e c t io n 1 4 8 o f t h e A c t , 19 6 1 o r s u b m it t e d t o j u r is d i c t io n o f t h e A s s e s s in g O f f ic e r . S h e h a d m e r e ly u p l o a d e d t h e d e a t h c e r t if ic a t e o f t h e d e c e a s e d a s s es s e e . x x x x x x 4 0 . C o n s e q u e n t ly , t h e a p p li c a b i lit y o f S e c t i o n 2 9 2 BB o f t h e A c t , 1 9 6 1 h a s b e e n h e ld t o b e a t t r a c t e d t o a n a s s e s s e e an d n o t t o le g a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s . ” 9 . T h e a b o v e ju d g m e n t w a s f o l lo w e d b y t h is C o u r t i n W . P . ( C ) N o . 2 6 7 8 / 2 0 2 0 t it l e d Mr s . S r ip a t h i S u b b a r a y a Ma n o h a ra L / H L a t e S r ip a t h i S u b b a r a y a G u p t a vs. P r in c i p a l C o m m is s i o n e r o f I n c o m e T a x 2 2 , N . D e lh i & A n r . 1 0 . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a ls o , a s t h e n o t ic e u n d e r Se c t io n 1 4 8 o f t h e A c t w a s is s u e d a g a in s t a d e a d p e r s o n , t h e s a m e is n u l l a n d v o i d a n d a l l c o n s e q u e n t p r o c e e d in g s / o r d e r s , i n c lu d in g t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r a n d t h e s u b s e q u e n t n o t ic e s , b e i n g e q u a ll y t a in t e d , a r e l ia b l e t o b e s e t a s id e . 1 1 . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e i m p u g n e d n o t ic e d a t e d 3 0 . 0 3 . 20 1 9 is s u e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 4 8 o f t h e A c t is s e t a s id e a l o n g w i th a l l c o n s e q u e n t ia l p r o c e e d i n g s / n o t ic e s / a s s e s s m e n t o r d e r s. 1 2 . T h e p e t it i o n is a ll o w e d . T h e r e s h a ll b e n o o r d er a s t o c o s t s . 9 . In te r ms o f th e e x p lic it o b se r va tio n s ma d e in the ju d g m e n t o f th e Ho n ’b le De lh i Hig h Co u rt, w e fin d co n sid e ra b le me r it in th e p le a o n b e h a lf o f th e le g a l h e i r fo r t h e a sse s se e th a t th e e n t ire p ro ce e d in g s b e g in n in g fro m is su e o f sh o w ca u se n o tice a n d cu l min a t in g in re vi sio n a l o rd e r u n d e r S e ctio n 2 6 3 of t h e A ct is a ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 9 n o n e st e xe rc ise a n d ca n n o t b e g ive n e ffe ct in la w re g a r d le ss o f th e fa ct w h e th e r th e re ve n u e w a s p ri vy to d e a th o r o th erw i se . ” 5. The ld. DR Stands by the impugned order. 6. Heard. Admittedly, the assessee was died on 24.01.2020 as per and the show cause notice vide letter no. 3225 dated 19.03.2021 was issued u/s 263 to the deceased person Sh. Tarlok Singh Gill instead of its legal heirs, the appellant. In our view, the show cause notice issued in the name of deceased person is non-est, and thus liable to be quashed. We appreciate the contention of the Ld. Counsel that it is a settled law that a notice required to be issued in name of the assessee is served upon him and not on the dead person and that there was no statutory requirement imposing the obligation upon legal heirs to intimate, death of the assessee and that the provisions of section 292B of the Act are held to be inapplicable vis-à-vis notice issued to a dead person. 7. It is settled law on legality of show cause notice issued in the name of dead person, the consequent revisional order passed under Section 263 of the Act is invalid. In our view, the issue of validity of a notice and proceedings held subsequent thereto against a dead person is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Dharamraj vs. ITO’, (supra) has examined the issue at length and held that the notice ITA No. 24/Asr/2021 Tarsem Singh Gill v. Pr. CIT 10 issued against a death person is null and void and all consequent proceedings/orders being equally tainted are liable to be set aside. 8. In the above view, we find considerable merit in the plea of the appellant assessee that the entire proceedings beginning from issue of show cause notice and culminating in revisionary order under Section 263 of the Act is a nonest and therefore, the order passed u/s 263 of the act is hereby quashed as bad in law. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order