DELHI BENCH INCOME TAX OFFICER v. V.P. SHARMA October 20, 2005 JUDGMENT A.D.Jain, J. M. - This is department's appeal for assessment year 2001- 02against deletion of penalty of Rs. 1.26 lacs, imposedunder section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.The department has pleaded that section 159(1) of Act uses words 'anysum', instead of words 'any tax' and that therefore, besides tax, legalrepresentative of deceased assessee is liable topay amount of penalty also. It has further been pleaded that as per section159(2)( b) of Act, penalty proceedings canbe started against legal representative for any default committed by thedeceased, rendering liable to penalty. 3.We do not find force in stand taken by department. Obviously, legalheir cannot be held responsible for act done by deceased assessee, so far as regards imposition of penalty undersection 271(1)(c). So far as regards assertion that according tosection 159(2)(b), penalty proceedings can beinitiated against legal heir for default committed by deceased assessee, that is not true. Section 159(1) provides thatwhere person dies, his legal representation shall be liable to pay any sum,which deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died. As persection 159(2)(b), any proceedings which couldhave been taken against deceased if he had survived may be taken againstthe legal representative, for purpose of making assessment of income ofthe deceased and for purpose of levying any sum in hands of legalrepresentative in accordance with provisions of section 159(1). 4.Clearly, it is for purpose of assessment of deceased assessee and not for penalty purposes, that any proceedingswhich could have been taken against deceased, had he survived, may be takenagainst legal representation [as has been provided in section 159(2)(b)]. department has tried to make out casethat since section 159(1) uses phrase 'any sum' and not phrase 'anytax' legal heir, in such circumstance, is liable for initiation ofpenalty proceedings for act committed by deceased assessee.This is palpable misconception of law. It has been time and over againjudiciously noticed that Legislature chooses its words with utmost care andcaution. In section 159, there is no mention of penalty proceedings. It isamply clear that proceedings under section159(2)(b)do not include penalty proceedings. department has not been able toeffectively controvert this settled position. Therefore, grievance of thedepartment is ill founded. It is hereby rejected. As result, order ofLearned CIT, being well reasoned, is maintained. 5.Consequently, appeal stands dismissed. *** Income-tax Officer v. V.P. Sharma