SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Maya Devi Khowal (legal Heir of Late Sh. Mohinder Kumar) – Appellant
Versus
Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 67(1), Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7267 of 2023 & CM Nos.28272-73 of 2023
Decided On : 25-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr Amol Sinha, Mr Nitin Gulati, Mr Ashok Sikka and Ms Reena Gandhi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Shivansh B. Pandya, Standing Counsel along with Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate, for the Respondents.

The court has the discretion to set aside an assessment order and grant liberty to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Headnote:

Assessment Order - Challenge to Assessment Order - The court set aside the impugned assessment order and granted liberty to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after taking into account the response of the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, as the legal heir and wife of the deceased-assessee, challenged the assessment order concerning Assessment Year 2018-19, stating that despite informing the respondents/revenue of her husband's death, the assessment order was passed in the deceased assessee's name.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned assessment order and granted liberty to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after taking into account the response of the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the assessment order passed in the deceased assessee's name despite the petitioner informing the authorities of her husband's death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interests of both sides could be preserved by setting aside the impugned assessment order and granting liberty to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned assessment order and granting liberty to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM No.28272/2023

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 7267/2023&CM No.28273/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice.

2.1. Mr Sunil Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

3. Given the direction that we propose to issue, Mr Agarwal says that counter-affidavit need not be filed, and that he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the Court.

3.1. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

4. The petitioner, who is the legal heir and wife of the deceased-assessee i.e., one, Mr Mohinder Kumar has laid a challenge to the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

5. The short ground, on which the petitioner seeks to assail the aforementioned assessment order is, that despite information being given to the respondents/revenue that her husband i.e., Mr Mohinder Kumar had expired, the impugned assessment order was passed in the deceased assessee's name i.e., Mr Mohinder Kumar.

6. The record shows, that the petitioner's husband i.e., Mr Mohinder Kumar expired on 10.12.2017.

6.1. The record also indicates, that the petitioner obtained the surviving members' certificate from the concerned District Magistrate on 19.11.2018.

7. It is the petitioner's case, that a communication dated 04.04.2022 was addressed to the concerned authority, inter alia, bringing to its notice, that the petitioner's husband had expired on 10.12.2017.

8. It appears, that the petitioner had also uploaded the death certificate on the designated portal on 01.08.2022.

9. Although Mr Agarwal has brought to the fore the fact, that the petitioner did not take steps in time to inform the concerned authority that her husband had expired, in the fitness of things, we are of the opinion, that the interests of both sides can be preserved by setting aside the impugned assessment order, with liberty to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a fresh order, after taking into account the response of the petitioner to the notice dated 17.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

10. We have moved towards this end, as the AO had, it appears, issued a notice dated 13.03.2023, inter alia, seeking the relevant documents, including the surviving members' certificate, in view of the fact that the petitioner's husband had expired.

11. Unfortunately, this information, it appears, did not reach the petitioner, as it was directed to the wrong and/or inchoate address.

12. Accordingly, as indicated above, the impugned assessment order dated 29.03.2023 is set aside.

13. As indicated above, the AO will have liberty to pass a fresh order, albeit, after taking into account, the defence put forth by the petitioner.

14. The petitioner is, thus, given liberty to file a reply to the notice dated 17.03.2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

14.1. The reply will be filed within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the judgment passed today.

15. The AO will also accord personal hearing to the petitioner and/or her authorized representative.

15.1. For this purpose, the AO will issue a notice to the petitioner, which will indicate the date and time of hearing.

16. Needless to add, the AO will pass a speaking order, a copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner.

17. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

18. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.

19. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top