Another way of getting at Valter Moretti's answer using a somewhat outdated (but altogether rigorous) notion of generalized functions is simply to witness that:
$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty T(x, t)\,\mathrm{d} t=1$$
i.e. $T$ is a normalized Gaussian function of $x$ and therefore that we can think of the equivalence class of sequences prototyped by the sequence $T\left(x, 1\right) ,\,T\left(x, \frac{1}{2}\right),\,T\left(x, \frac{1}{3}\right),\,\cdots$ as the generalized function $\delta(x)$ in the way defined in M. J. Lighthill, "An Introduction to Fourier Analysis and Generalized Functions". Here, we conceive of a generalized function not foremost as a member of the algebraic dual of the Schwartz space but rather as an equivalence class of sequences of functions, where the equivalence relationship is $f=\{f_n(x)\}_{n=0}^\infty\sim g=\{g_n(x)\}_{n=0}^\infty$ iff $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\langle f_n,\,h\rangle=\langle g_n,\,h\rangle\,\forall h\in\mathscr{S}$ where $\mathscr{S}$ is the Schwartz space. So we have, by the Lighthill definition of $\delta$, that $T(x,\,0^+)=\delta(x)$ and the rest of Valter's answer follows.
Now, I admit that this may seem a bit of a daft answer, because essentially all I am doing is saying in fancy "it's true because that is one possible definition of Dirac delta", but it does recall one approach to the introduction to the notion of generalized functions (the Lighthill / Temple approach) that is still sometimes used in introductory expositions of the idea. When this approach is discussed, the heat kernel is often explicitly singled out as Lighthill's "prototype" for the $\delta$ equivalence class. I sometimes find it helpful to think of generalized functions in this way to see certain results. So I answered, because your question evoked fond memories of my first grasp of the rigorous notion of a generalized function through Lighthill's approach.