Late Shri bhairu Prasad C/o- Kalani & Co., CA, 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Jaipur V. ITO Ward-1(2), Alwar, Alwar

ITA 723/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7747 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH; RAJ MEHRA JCIT D
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Period of limitation; Procedural lapse; Time period of passing order; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, PLOT NO. 132, KHERLI SAIYAD, ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. BEGPP 6491 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) & SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/07/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2019 OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, N OTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ALTER, AMEND AND MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. NECESSARY COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 AND CONSEQUENTLY REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A O DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON. 2. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFOR MATION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 17,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E AO ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2017 TO ASSESS THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO T HE SAID NOTICE, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE T HE AO AND INTIMATED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALREADY DIED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2016. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 142(1) TO THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSES SEE AND COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 18,72,420/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO QU ESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GR ANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,00,000/- BEING SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 8,00,000/- WAS SUSTAINED. 3. BEFORE ME, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2017 IS NOT VALID AS THE SAME WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON. THIS FACT WAS APPRISED TO THE AO BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEGAL HEIR APPEARED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING S. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING AND THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS NOTICE ISSUED 3 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. UNDER SECTION 148 WAS IN THE NAME OF DECEASED ASSES SEE AND NOT IN THE NAME OF LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONT ENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AL AMELU VEERAPPAN VS. ITO, 169 DTR 434 (MAD.) AS WELL AS THE DECISION DATED 5 TH APRIL, 2019 OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RUPA SHYAMSUNDAR DHUMATKAR VS. ACI T IN WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2019. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS DULY SERVED ON THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE SAID NOTICE WAS ALSO ACTED UPON BY THE LEGAL HEIR, THEREFORE, EVEN IF TH E SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DECEASED ASSESSEE DUE TO THE REASON THAT TH E AO WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DEATH TILL THAT DATE, ONCE THE LEGAL HEIR HAS ACCE PTED THE NOTICE AND ACTED UPON THE SAME, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 CANNOT BE HEL D AS INVALID. THE LD. D/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEAS ED ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT RAISED ANY OBJEC TION BEFORE THE AO REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE, THEREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED AT A SUBSEQUENT STAGE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. I HAVE PERUSED THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2017 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SAID N OTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF BHAIRU PRASAD, THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO E STABLISHED FROM THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DIED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 AT THE AGE OF 80 YEARS. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SE CTION 148 IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON IS NOT A VALID NOTICE. EVEN IF THE AO HAS IS SUED THE NOTICE IN THE NAME OF 4 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. DEAD PERSON, ONCE THIS FACT IS KNOWN TO THE AO, A F RESH NOTICE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE IN HAND THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2017 UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED AT THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION OF 6 (SIX) YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION WITH THE AO EVEN TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DUE TO THE EXPIRY OF LIMIT ATION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE IT ACT. THOUGH THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AND, THEREFORE, THE PARTICIPATI ON OF THE LEGAL HEIR IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT VALIDATE THE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN CASE OF ALAMELU VEERAPPAN VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISS UE OF VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON HELD IN PARA 16 TO 26 AS UNDER :- 16. THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLE BEING THAT A NOTICE IS SUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON IS UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW. IF SUCH IS THE LEGAL POSITION, WOULD THE REVENUE BE JUSTIFIED IN CONTENDING THAT THEY, HAVIN G NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE ENTITLED TO PLEAD THAT T HE NOTICE IS NOT DEFECTIVE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SHOU LD BE DEFINITELY AGAINST THE REVENUE. 17. THIS COURT SUPPORTS SUCH A CONCLUSION WITH THE FOL LOWING REASONS : ADMITTEDLY, THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF N OTICE FOR REOPENING EXPIRED ON 31.3.2017. THE IMPUGNED NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 30. 3.2017 IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON. ON BEING INTIMATED ABOUT THE DEATH , THE DEPARTMENT SENT THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER - HIS SPOUSE TO PARTICIPAT E IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS NOTICE WAS WELL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, AS IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER 31.3.2017. IF WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM SANS COMPLICA TED FACTS, A NOTICE ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E. 31.3.2017 IS A NULLITY, UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT INTIMATED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT CAN NOT, BY ITSELF, EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THIS COURT BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON 5 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. THE PART OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEAS ED ASSESSEE TO IMMEDIATELY INTIMATE THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE OR TAKE STEPS TO CANCEL THE PAN REGISTRATION. 18. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHETHER SECTION 159 OF THE ACT WOULD GET ATTRACTED. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUE STION WOULD BE IN THE NEGATIVE, AS THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 159 OF T HE 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 A S AGAINST THE LEGAL HEIRS. THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE BEING OTHE RWISE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 159 OF THE ACT HAVE NO APPLICATION. 19. THE REVENUE SEEKS TO BRING THEIR CASE UNDER SECTIO N 292 OF THE ACT TO STATE THAT THE DEFECT IS A CURABLE DEFECT AND ON THAT GRO UND, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE CANNOT BE DECLARED AS INVALID. 20. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN SECTION 292 OF THE ACT IS CATEGORICAL AND CLEAR. THE NOTICE HAS TO BE, IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT, IN C ONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ISSUE RELATING TO LIMITATION IS NOT A CURABLE DEFECT FOR THE REVENUE TO INVOKE SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. 21. ALL THE ABOVE REASONS ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF VIPIN WALIA . ( SUPRA ). IN THAT CASE, THE NOTICE DATED 27.3.2015 WAS ISS UED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO D IED ON 14.3.2015. THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS PUT TO CHALLENGE. T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER TOOK A STAND THAT SINCE THE INTIMATION OF DEATH OF THE ASS ESSEE ON 14.3.2015 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HER, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON A DEAD PE RSON. HOWEVER, THE FACT REGARDING THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DI SPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 147/148 OF THE ACT AND AT THAT STAGE, THE SON OF THE DECEASED APPROACH ED THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI POINTED OUT THAT WHAT WAS S OUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE DECEASED ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09, FOR WHICH, THE LIMITATION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 /148 OF THE ACT WAS 31.3.2015 AND ON 02.7.2015 WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSU ED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY DEAD AND IF THE DEPARTMENT INTENDED TO PROC EED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, IT COULD HAVE DONE SO PRIOR TO 31.3.2015 B Y ISSUING THE NOTICE TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AND BEYOND THAT DATE, I T COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN THE MATTER EVEN BY ISSUING NOTICE TO THE LEGAL R EPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION IN VIPIN WALIA ( SUPRA ) FULLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN. 22. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIPIN WALIA ( SUPRA ) WAS FOLLOWED IN THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE O F RASID LALA , ( SUPRA ) IN WHICH, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE DEAD PERSON, THAT TOO, AFTER A LONG DELAY. THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 159 OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED, IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED AGAINST AND IN THE NAME OF THE HEIRS O F THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND UNDER THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, SECTION 159 OF THE AC T SHALL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 6 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. 23. IN THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD . ( SUPRA ) ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, WHICH FELL FOR CONSIDERATIO N, IS AS TO WHETHER SUCH FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXISTING E NTITY OR A DEAD PERSON COULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 292B O F THE ACT AND AFTER REFERRING TO THE DECISIONS ON THE POINT INCLUDING T HE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI NATH SURESH CHAND RAM NARESH V. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 TAXMAN 186 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THAT FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXISTING ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFEC T, AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON. 24. THE LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENU E HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD . ( SUPRA ) BY REFERRING TO SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP . CASE ( SUPRA ) 25. ON A PERUSAL OF THE FACTUAL POSITION THEREIN, THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFECT WAS CURABLE BECAUSE IT W AS HELD THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE CORRECT NAME AND THAT THE PAN MENTIONED WAS ALSO INCORRECT. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND WAS TAKEN INTO CO NSIDERATION AND THE COURT HELD THAT ERRORS AND MISTAKES CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT NULLIFY THE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE OTHERWISE VALID AND THAT NO PREJUDICE HAD BEEN CAUSED, AS THIS BEING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP CASE ( SUPRA ) IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND IT DOES N OT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 26. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE IS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THE FACTS IN THE CASE IN HAND ARE IDENTICAL TO THE SAID CASE WHEREIN THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED ON 30 TH MARCH, 2017 WHEREAS THE LIMITATION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE EXPIRED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2017. SINCE THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON, THEREFORE THE HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO ARE BEYOND THE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION AND THE NOTICE ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS A NULLITY. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RUPA SHYAMSUNDAR DHUMATKAR VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AS UNDER :- 7 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES FOR FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE PETITION. THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE WIDOW OF LATE SHRI SHYAMSU NDAR PUNDALIK DHUMATKAR. LATE SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR DHUMATKAR WAS ENGAGED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS. HE FILED RETURN OF HIS INCOME TILL THE YEAR 2007-2008. ACCORDING TO PETITIONER, HOWEVER, SINCE THEREAFTER HE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME, HE HAD STOPPED FILING RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A N OTICE DATED 27/03/2018 IN THE NAME OF LATE SHRI NESARIKAR 2/3 08-WP-404-19.OD T SHYAMSUNDAR DHUMATKAR UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11-2012. SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR PUNDALIK DHUMATKAR EXPIRED ON 14/10/201 6. THUS, THE NOTICE DATED 27/03/2018 WAS ISSUED ON A DEAD PERSON. THE P ETITIONER AS A WIDOW AND LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR DHUMATK AR BROUGHT THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. DESPITE TH IS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 29/08/2018 AND THEREFORE THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS PETITION CHALLENGING THE SAID NOTICE DATED 27/03/2018. 2. THE FACTS ARE NOT SERIOUSLY IN DISPUTE. THE PETI TIONER HAD PRODUCED THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR DHUMATKAR BEFORE TH E INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, INDICATING THAT HE DIED ON 14/10/2016. THUS, THE IM PUGNED NOTICE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED ON A DEAD PERSON. THERE AR E SEVERAL JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE OR RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INVALID IN LAW. A REFERENCE IN THIS 3/3 08-WP-404-1 9.ODT RESPECT CAN BE MADE TO A DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (SPECIAL CIVIL APPL ICATION NO.15172 OF 2018, DECIDED ON 10/12/2018). AS ALSO THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALAMELU VEERAPPAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R, NON- CORPORATE WARD-2(2), CHENNAI, REPORTED IN (2018) 257 TAXMAN 7 2 (MADRAS). IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REFER TO ALL THE JUDGMENTS ON THE POIN T. SUFFICE IT TO SAY, AS PER THE SETTLED LAW, NOTICE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AGA INST A DEAD PERSON IS INVALID. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IS SET ASIDE. PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE ORDER OF ASSESSME NT DATED 31/12/2018 ALSO STANDS ANNULLED. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREA DY DEAD, THE SAID NOTICE IS INVALID AND CONSEQUENT REASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SE CTION 147 IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. I ORDE R ACCORDINGLY. 8 ITA NO. 723/JP/2019 LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. 6. SINCE I HAVE QUASHED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT, THEREFORE, I DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE REGARDIN G THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/07/2 019. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 23/07/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- LATE SHRI BHAIRU PRASAD, L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI, ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 1(2), ALWAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 723/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR