JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Notice dated 22.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'); Assessment Order dated 14.11.2019 under Section(s) 144/147 of the Act; as also the Penalty Notice(s) dated 14.11.2019 under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 read with Section 271F of the Act.

2. The above-mentioned Impugned Notices and the Assessment Order have been issued / passed by the respondents in the name of Late Shri Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta the Assessee and relate to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

3. It is the case of the petitioner, that Late Shri Gupta had, however, expired on 17.06.2014 and in support of this submission, the petitioner has placed on record the Death Certificate of Late Shri Gupta issued by the Department of Public Health, Corporation of Chennai.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the above proceedings emanating from the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2019, until 21.11.2019, when the petitioner received the Impugned Assessment Order and the Penalty Notices. Thereafter on enquiry, representation and follow-up, the petitioner became aware of the Impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act, leading to filing of the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Notice dated 22.03.2019 having been issued in favour of a dead person, was invalid and all proceedings thereafter, were non-est. In support of this contention, the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Savita Kapila vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (WP(C) 3258/2020).

6. On the other hand, while the learned counsel for the respondents does not deny the factum of the death of the assessee- Late Shri Gupta, he raises a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy in form of an appeal, being open to the petitioner.

7. On facts, he further submits that information was received by the Department that the assessee had deposited a cash amount of Rs.11,55,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty-five Thousand) in a savings bank account maintained with the Indian Bank. As the assessee had not filed his return of income, the Assessing Officer, having reason to believe that the said amount had escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13, re-opened the same under Section 147 of the Act and Impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, after getting the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. As the assessee failed to file the return of income, further Notices were issued to the assessee and as no explanation was received from the assessee, the Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.12.2019 was passed. He submits that the Assessing Officer was not aware and had no knowledge about the demise of the assessee as in spite of issuance of various Notices to the petitioner, the same was not informed to the Assessing Officer by the petitioner.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

9. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the maintainability of the present petition, as also on merit, are no longer res integra, having been elaborately discussed and rejected by this Court in its judgment in Savita Kapila (supra) authored by one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan). Therefore, instead of re-visiting the issues raised, we would merely reproduce the findings given by this Court in its referred judgment:

" AN ALTERNATIVE STATUTORY REMEDY DOES NOT OPERATE AS A BAR TO MAINTAINABILITY OF A WRIT PETITIN WHERE THE ORDER OR NOTICE OR PROCEEDINGS ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO INITIATE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE MERE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WOULD NOT RENDER THE CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION INFRUCTUOUS.

24. Further, the fact that an asse