Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Prakash Tatoba Toraskar - Appellant
Versus
Income-tax Offcer 24(3)(1) & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4871 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Invalid Notice - Income Tax Act - The court held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against a deceased person would be invalid, unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Order under Section 148A(d) on the ground that the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated against a dead person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial notice under Section 148 was in the name of the deceased and subsequent communication purporting to be a notice in terms of Section 148A(b) was also addressed to the deceased, making it clear that the notices were invalid.
Issues: The issue was whether the re-assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on settled law that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person would be invalid, unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.
Final Decision: The Petition was allowed and the notices and the Order under Section 148A(d) were set aside.
JUDGMENT
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. - The Petitioner challenges notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 30 June 2021 and 20 June 2022 and the Order under Section 148A(d) dated 30 June 2022 on the ground that the the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated against a dead person.
2. It is stated that the Respondents have issued a notice under Section 148 dated 30 June 2021, in the name of the father of the Petitioner, namely, Prakash Tatoba Toraskar, who had already expired on 4 November 2019. The death certifcate issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is also placed on record to support this fact. It is stated that the said notice had not been challenged in any writ proceedings before the Court and ordinarily the matter should have rested there. However, pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal 2022 SCC Online SC 543, the Respondents then vide communication dated 20 May 2022 acting in purported compliance of the said judgment treated the earlier notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to be a notice under Section 148A(b) provided information to the deceased Prakash Tatoba Toraskar and sought reply thereto, so that necessary Order in terms of Section 148A(d) could be passed. Since Prakash Tatoba Toraskar had already expired, his legal heir Kiran Toraskar submitted a response informing the assessing offcer about the factum of death of the assessee. A copy of the death certifcate was also furnished along with the response. It is also not out of place to mention that since the communication dated 20 May 2022 purporting to be a notice under Section 148A(b) had been addressed in the name of the deceased, the legal heir of the deceased, therefore, did not consent to participate in the assessment proceedings.
3. Not withstanding the above mentioned objection having been taken by the legal heir of the deceased, an Order under Section 148A(d) came to be passed on 30 June 2022. From the facts as they emerge from the record, thus, make it clear that initial notice under Section 148 was in the name of the deceased and so was the subsequent communication dated 20 May 2022 purporting to be a notice in terms of Section 148A(b), it is settled law that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person would be invalid, unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Offcer without raising any objection. Reference in this regard can be made in the case of Income Tax Ward 1(3)(7), Surat Vs. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara2.
4. Be that as it may, the Petition is allowed. Notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 30 June 2021 and 20 June 2022 and the Order under Section 148A(d) dated 30 June 2022 are set aside.
AI
A notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against a deceased person would be invalid, unless the legal representatives submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raisin....
Point of Law : Notice under Section 148 of Act against a dead person was held to be null and void and all consequential proceedings/orders, including assessment order and subsequent notices were set ....
Notices under the Income Tax Act against a deceased individual are null and void, rendering all consequential proceedings legally unsustainable.
The jurisdictional requirement under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be fulfilled, and there is no statutory obligation for legal heirs to intimate the death of the assessee to the Reven....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice issued on a dead person under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is null and void, and all consequential proceedings in the na....
Assessment proceedings can continue against a legal representative if initial notices were issued when the deceased was alive, following provisions of the Income Tax Act.
A notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void, lacking jurisdiction. Legal heirs are not under a statutory obligation to intimate t....
The want of a valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment and thus affects the validity of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
