Late shri bhura ram (L/H GASILAL PHOOL CHAND AND BROTHERS), Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 989/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3429 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI; LA XMAN SINGH AO
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARYIEYA
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 147; 148; 6; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HE A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM (LEGAL HEIRS GASILAL, PHOOL CHAND, RAM PRASAD, LALLU LAL, PRAHLAD) S/O SHRI FATTARAM, VILL.- MANGYAWAS, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABDPG9552F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARYIEYA & SHRI ROHIT TIWARI (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J. C. KULHARI (JCIT) & SHRI LA XMAN SINGH (AO) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/08/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/11/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 18.09.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE VERY ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 R/W 148 IS BAD IN LAW WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BEING VOID AB-INITIO, THE SAME KIN DLY BE QUASHED. CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 144 /148 DATED 11.02.2014 ALSO KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ORDER U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2014 ARE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER RE ASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 BY THE AO WI THOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND EVEN WITHOU T COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER SO FRAMED IN GROSS BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A), KINDLY BE QUASHED. 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO ALLEGING THAT NOTIC E/S U/S 142(1) WAS/WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WHICH, REMAINED U N-COMPLIED. HOWEVER, SUCH ALLEGATION/S, IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE FACTS IN AS MUCH AS NO SUCH NOTICE WAS EVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR ANYONE ELSE DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THIS BEHALF. 4. RS.53,10,110/-: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO OF RS.53,10,110/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ADDIT ION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IS CONTRARY TO THE PRO VISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. 5. THE AO & LD. CIT(A) BOTH ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY OF CHARG ING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S 147 READ WIT H SECTION 144 ON 11.02.2014 WHEREIN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SA LE AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 53,10,106/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN APPEAL, THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( A). HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL THROUGH THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ASSE SSEE WHICH HAS COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US. 3. IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE D ECEASED ASSESSEE ASSESSEE HAVE CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDIC TION U/S 147 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. 4. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUANCE OF VALID NOTICE IS A FOUNDATION FOR THE VALID RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE NOTICE PRESCRIBED U/S 148 IS NOT A MERE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT, BUT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IF NO NOTICE IS ISSUED OR IF THE NOTICE ISSUES IS SHOWN TO BE INVALID, THE PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE INVALID AND VOID. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE DEAD PERSON WHO HAD EXPIRED ON 26.11.2008 I.E. MUCH PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NO TICE U/S 148 ON 20.03.2013. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE HAVING BE EN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF A DEAD PERSON WAS AN INVALID NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AB INITIO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT OR 143(2) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIRS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE NOT ICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS INVALI D AND VOID AB INITIO. 5. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR WAS THA T IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 20.03.2013 WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE DECEAS ED ASSESSEE NOR ON HIS ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 LEGAL HEIRS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION TO THIS EFFECT WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. AO VIDE LETTER DATED 31.01.2014. THOUGH THE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF VIDE LETTER DATED 04.02.2014 STATING T HAT THE SAID NOTICE U/S 148 WAS DULY SERVED THROUGH POST. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS W ERE PROVIDED AS TO THE NAME OF THE PERSON ON WHOM SERVICE THROUGH POST, IF ANY WAS EFFECTED AND WHETHER THAT PERSON IS THE DECEASED ASSESSEE OR THE LEGAL HEIRS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE SAID FACT THAT THE NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND MERELY BASIS DISPATCH REGISTER WHEREIN THE NOTICE TO OTHER PARTI ES HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DULY SERVED, THE LD. CIT(A) C AME TO THE CONCLUSION THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. 6. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF LATE SMT. GULAB DEVI SHARMA TH/L/H BRIJ KIS HORE SHARMA VS. ITO (ITA NO. 417/JP/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.09.2016) . FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF VI PIN WALIA VS. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 19 (DEL), ALAMELU VEERAPPAN VS ITO (2018) 95 TA XMANN.COM 155 (MAD), CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA JAISWAL (2010) 325 ITR 563 ( ALL.) BESIDES OTHER DECISIONS. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BAS IS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ACTION U/S 147 WAS INITIATED I N THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND AFTER TAKING PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTH ORITY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 20.03.2013 AND SERVED THROUGH POST AS MEN TIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIAT ED WERE AS PER LAW. THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ISS UE REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS ALSO RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ID. C IT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AS WELL AS DISP ATCH REGISTER AND FOUND THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN TIME AND THE GROUND O F ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE MADE OBJECTION WHICH WAS DULY DISPOSED OFF BY SPEAKING ORDER DATED 04.02.2014. IN THE ORDER, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR FOR THE PRIOR ASSES SMENT YEARS AND WAS NOT HAVING ANY PAN. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, IT WAS N OT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS RIGHTLY ISSUED IN TIME AND PROCEEDINGS WERE AS PER LAW, AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AN D THE LD CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, SHRI BHURA RAM HAD EXPIRED ON 26.11.2008 AS PER DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 11.02. 2009 ISSUED BY JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 147 WERE RECORDED ON 15.03.2013 AND THEREAFTER THE NOTICE U/ S 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ON 20.03.2013. THEREFORE, AT THE T IME OF ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY EXPIRED AN D THE NOTICE WAS THUS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. FURTHER, W E FIND THAT THERE IS NO SUBSEQUENT NOTICE U/S 148 WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VIPIN WALIA VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHEREIN REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 159 OF THE A CT, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 11. SECTION 159(2) OF THE ACT MAKES A SPECIFIC REF ERENCE TO A REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T. WHILE SECTION 159(2)(A) OF THE ACT TALKS OF A PROCEEDING ALREADY TAKEN AGAINST AN ASSESSEE 'BEFORE HIS DEATH'. SECTION 159(2)(B) OF T HE ACT ENVISAGES ANY PROCEEDING WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE DECEASED IF HE HAD SURVIVED. IT PERMITS SUCH A PROCEEDING TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THE LRS OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE EVEN IF IT HAD NOT TAKEN WHIL E THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 ALIVE. SECTION 159(2)(B) IS RELEVANT AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED. 12. WHAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE ITO WAS TO IN ITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AGAINST TH E DECEASED ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09. THE LIMITATION FOR ISSUANC E OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT WAS 31ST MARCH 2015. ON 27TH MARCH 2015, WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREAD Y DEAD. IF THE DEPARTMENT INTENDED TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, IT COULD HAVE DONE SO PRIOR TO 31ST MARCH 2015 BY ISSUING A NOTICE TO THE LRS OF THE DECEASED. BEYOND THAT DATE IT COULD NOT HAVE PR OCEEDED IN THE MATTER EVEN BY ISSUING NOTICE TO THE LRS OF THE ASS ESSEE. 9. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN EARLIER BY THE HONB LE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA JAISWAL (SUPRA) WHER EIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ADDRES SED TO AN ASSESSEE WHO WAS ALREADY DEAD EVEN ON THE DATE OF I SSUE OF NOTICE. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 28TH MARCH, 1985, WHILE TH E ASSESSEE, GANGA PRASAD JAISWAL HAD DIED ON 20TH MARCH, 1985. THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF GA NGA PRASAD JAISWAI BUT IT WAS SERVED ON ONE KESHAV RAM, MUNIM. EVEN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECTLY MEN TIONED IN THE NOTICE. THE NOTICE WAS ADDRESSED TO GANGA PRASAD JA ISWAI WHILE THE CORRECT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS GANGA RAM JAISWAL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFECTS IN THE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 WERE NOT CURED BY S. 292B. 10. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADR AS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ALAMELU VEERAPPAN VS ITO (SUPRA), FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VIPIN WALIA, WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 14. THE ISSUE, WHICH FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION, IS A S TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON - THE SAID MR.S.VEERAPPAN IS ENFORCEABL E IN LAW AND THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUE BEING AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER , BEING THE WIFE OF THE SAID MR.S.VEERAPPAN, CAN BE COMPELLED TO PARTICIPAT E IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESPOND TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. THE FACT THAT T HE SAID MR.S.VEERAPPAN DIED ON 26.1.2010 IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IF THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED, THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON IS UNENFORCEABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 15. THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO JUSTIFY THEIR STAND BY CONTENDING THAT THEY WERE NOT INTIMATED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE LEGAL HEIRS DID NOT TAKE ANY STEPS TO CANCEL THE PAN REGISTRATI ON IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT WAS JUS TIFIED IN DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO CO-OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS PUR SUANT TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. 16. THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLE BEING THAT A NOTICE ISSUED 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 T HEY, HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE ENTI TLED TO PLEAD THAT THE NOTICE IS NOT DEFECTIVE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SHOULD BE DEFINITELY AGAINST THE REVENUE. 17. THIS COURT SUPPORTS SUCH A CONCLUSION WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS : ADMITTEDLY, THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF N OTICE FOR REOPENING EXPIRED ON 31.3.2017. THE IMPUGNED NOTICE WAS ISSUE D ON 30.3.2017 IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON. ON BEING INTIMATED ABO UT THE DEATH, THE DEPARTMENT SENT THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER - HIS SPOUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS NOTICE WAS WELL BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION, AS IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER 31.3.2017. IF WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM SANS COMPLICATED FACTS, A NOTICE ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIO D OF LIMITATION I.E. ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 31.3.2017 IS A NULLITY, UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND WI THOUT JURISDICTION. THUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT INTIMAT ED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT CANNOT, BY ITSELF, EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. NOTHING HAS BEEN PLAC ED BEFORE THIS COURT BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A STATUTORY OB LIGATION ON THE PART OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 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 T HIS QUESTION WOULD BE IN THE NEGATIVE, AS THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 59 OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IF THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN I NITIATED WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALIVE AND WAS PERMITTED FOR THE PROCEE DINGS TO BE CONTINUED AS AGAINST THE LEGAL HEIRS. THE FACTUAL P OSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE BEING OTHERWISE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 159 OF THE ACT HAVE NO APPLICATION. 19. THE REVENUE SEEKS TO BRING THEIR CASE UNDER SEC TION 292 OF THE ACT TO STATE THAT THE DEFECT IS A CURABLE DEFECT AND ON THAT GROUND, 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 EFFEC T, IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. UND OUBTEDLY, THE ISSUE RELATING TO LIMITATION IS NOT A CURABLE DEFECT FOR THE REVENUE TO INVOKE SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL PROPOSITION SO L AID DOWN BY THE VARIOUS COURTS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE IS A NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. FURTHER, NO NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIRS AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF ITA NO. 989/JP/2015 LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 9 SECTION 159 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE INSTANT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRESENT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUANCE NOTI CE ON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE ARE BEING QUASHED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, REST ALL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME ACADE MIC IN NATURE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/11/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26/11/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- LATE SHRI BHURA RAM, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 989/JP/2015} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR