3.1 Precedents Cited

The court extensively referred to several precedents to substantiate its decision:

• Braham Prakash v. ITO (2004): Highlighted the invalidity of notices issued to deceased individuals, emphasizing the breach of natural justice and jurisdiction.
• Vipin Walia v. ITO (2016): Discussed the inapplicability of Section 159 in scenarios where proceedings commence only after the assessee's death.
• Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019): Addressed the nullity of proceedings when notices are issued to non-existent entities.
• Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. CCI (2005): Reinforced that reassessment notices must be validly served to the correct entity.
• Alamelu Veerappan v. CIO (2018): Affirmed that Section 159 does not apply when proceedings are initiated post death.
• Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO (2018): Clarified that Section 292B applies to assessee, not legal representatives.
• Skylight Hospitality LLP v. AACIT (2018): Differentiated between clerical errors and substantial jurisdictional lapses.
• Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998): Established that alternative statutory remedies do not bar writ petitions when jurisdiction is entirely absent.
• Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Ito (1961): Asserted the High Court's authority to prohibit actions by executive bodies acting without jurisdiction.
• Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. AACIT (2019): Supported the necessity of notices being issued to the correct person as a jurisdictional prerequisite.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on the fundamental procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding reassessment notices. The key points of the court's reasoning are as follows:

• Jurisdictional Prerequisite: The issuance of a notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for reopening an assessment. This notice must be served to the correct person to exercise jurisdiction.
• Service of Notice: In this case, the notice was issued to the deceased assessee post his demise and was never served upon the legal heirs, violating the procedural norms.
• Validity of Proceedings: Since the notice was invalidly issued, all subsequent proceedings, including penalties and assessment orders, were inherently flawed and lacked legal standing.
• Limitation Period: The reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiration of the limitation period under Section 149(1)(b), further invalidating the actions taken against the petitioner.
• Alternative Remedies: The court reiterated that the presence of alternative statutory remedies does not preclude the maintenance of a writ petition when proceedings are entirely devoid of jurisdiction.
• Obligation of Legal Heirs: The judgment clarified that there is no statutory obligation on legal heirs to inform the Income Tax Department of the assessee's demise, nullifying the respondent's arguments based on procedural deficiencies.

3.3 Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the practice of income tax reassessment in India:

• Emphasizing Procedural Compliance: Reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to strictly adhere to procedural requirements, especially in verifying the status of the assessee before initiating reassessment.
• Protection for Legal Heirs: Provides legal protection to the heirs of deceased individuals against unjustified tax proceedings initiated post their demise.
• Precedent for Future Cases: Serves as a precedent for similar cases where procedural lapses render tax notices and subsequent proceedings invalid.
• Clarification on Section Applicability: Clarifies the applicability and limitations of Sections 159 and 292B of the Income Tax Act, guiding legal practitioners in future litigations.
• Encouraging Due Diligence: Encourages the Income Tax Department to implement more robust checks to prevent notices being issued to deceased individuals or incorrect entities.

4.1 Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Purpose: Section 148 empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments when there is reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

Jurisdictional Notice: The notice under this section must be issued to the correct person within the prescribed time limits to validly exercise jurisdiction for reassessment.

4.2 Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Limitation Period: This section specifies the time limit within which proceedings for reassessment must be initiated. If the notice is issued after this period, the proceedings are time-barred.

4.3 Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Applicability: This section deals with the liability of legal representatives to pay taxes on behalf of a deceased assessee. It applies only if proceedings were pending at the time of the assessee's death.

4.4 Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Definition: Section 292B addresses the situation where notices contain mistakes or defects but are conditionally curable if the assessee cooperates by providing necessary clarifications or documents.

Limitation: It is applicable only to the assessee and not to the legal representatives, making it inapplicable in cases where notices are issued after the assessee's death.