Notices and assessments issued to a deceased assessee, without including legal representatives, are invalid, affecting the jurisdiction of the tax authority.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (ORAL):

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the assessment order dated 30th September, 2021 framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), the consequential notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act, the notice initiating proceeding for levy of penalty under Section 270 A of the Act and lastly, the impugned notice dated 22nd September, 2019 issued under Section 143(2) of the Act for initiating scrutiny assessment proceedings in the case of Late Sh. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar for Assessment Year (`AY') 2018-19.

2. The petitioner is the son of Late Sh. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased Assessee') who died on 10th March, 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that upon demise of the Assessee, his son Sh. Vikram Bhatnagar, the Petitioner herein filed an e- application dated 06th October, 2018 seeking registration as a legal representative of the deceased Assessee in the records of the Income Tax Department (`ITD'). The said application was accepted and the Petitioner herein was allowed to use the deceased Assessee's account on the E-portal to make necessary filings, on behalf of the deceased Assessee as the registered legal representative. He states that on 25th October, 2018 the Petitioner herein filed an Income Tax Return (`ITR') of the deceased Assessee for AY 2018-19 in his capacity as a legal representative. In the said ITR it was duly verified and declared that the ITR was being filed by the Petitioner in his capacity as a representative of the deceased Assessee.

4. He states that the impugned statutory notice dated 22nd September, 2019 under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer (`AO') for the assessment year under consideration for limited scrutiny. The said notice was issued in the name of the deceased Assessee. The said notice suffered from a fundamental jurisdictional error as it was issued in the name of a dead person and the scrutiny proceedings were proposed in the case of a dead person. The said notice neither mentioned the name of the legal heirs nor the PAN number of the said legal heirs. The AO did not take any step to bring all the legal heirs of the deceased Assessee on record at the time of issuance of said notice.

5. He states that in the subsequent notices dated 16th September, 2021 and 22nd September, 2021 issued by the AO even though the name of the deceased Assessee was mentioned, the AO added a suffix `Through Legal Heir Vikram Bhatnagar'. He states that such an amendment to the subsequent notices was impermissible. He further states the said suffix could not cure the fundamental defect that the notice was not issued to all the legal heirs of the deceased Assessee.

6. He states that the AO concluded the aforesaid assessment proceedings and passed the consequential impugned assessment order dated 30th September, 2021 in the name of the deceased Assessee and bearing his PAN AEFPB8513E, thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 13,49,43,945/-. He states that the impugned assessment has been completed for the complete Financial Year (`FY') 2017-18, despite the fact that since the deceased Assessee expired on 10th March, 2018 the relevant period of previous year for assessment was from 01st April, 2017 to 10th March, 2018 and not the complete year.

7. He states that, since the impugned notice dated 22nd September, 2018 issued under Section 143(2), was in the name of the deceased Assessee and bearing his PAN, without bringing on record or substituting, the legal heirs of the deceased Assessee, the consequen