Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the Income-tax Department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased-assessee or the deceased-assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether permanent account number record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu Veerappan [Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO, (2018) 12 ITR-OL 95 (Mad); 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13593.] it has been held „nothing has been placed before this court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation 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 permanent account number registration".

The judgment in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. [(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC); (2020) 18 SCC 331.] offers no assistance to the respondents. In Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. [(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC); (2020) 18 SCC 331.] the Supreme Court was dealing with section 170 of the Act, 1961 (succession to business otherwise than on death) wherein notice under section 143(2) of the Act, 1961 was issued to non-existing company. In that case, the Department by very nature of transaction was aware about the amalgamation. However, the said judgment nowhere states that there is an obligation upon the legal representative to inform the Income-tax Department about the death of the assessee or to surrender the permanent account number of the deceased assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow (page 635 of 416 ITR):

15. The abovenoted settled position of law was also followed in the decision of this court in the case of Vikram Bhatnagar v. CIT [2022 SCC OnLine Del 3899.] , wherein this court while dealing with the identical questions held as follows:

"11. In the present case as admitted by the respondent the facts are admitted. The death of the assessee was duly communicated by his legal heirs (the petitioner herein). The Income-tax return also duly disclosed that the same has been filed by the legal representative. However, in ignorance of the said facts available on the record the scrutiny proceedings have been wrongly conducted in the name of the deceased assessee without bringing on record all his legal heirs as per the requirement of law.

16. On the touchstone of the principles that emerge from the judicial pronouncements discussed above, it is crystal clear that the action under section 147 of the Act cannot be initiated on the factum as the impugned notices were issued to a dead person. Furthermore, the present is a case where the petitioner had already intimated the Revenue about the death of the assessee and yet it proceeded to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The course as adopted is clearly reflective of complete non- application of mind."