JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

1. Since, the issue involved in this petition runs in a very narrow compass, learned Advocates for the parties, jointly, made a request to take-up the same for hearing and final disposal, at the admission stage.

2. RULE. Learned Advocate, Mr. Sangani, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Raval, waives service of rule for the Respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of this petition, are as under;

It is the case of the petitioner that one Ms. Saryuben Pravinchandra Shah filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 on 30.09.2015, declaring her income at Rs.60,73,400/-.

3.1 It appears that the case of Ms. Shah was taken-up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued various notices, under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brief, ‘the Act’), so as to examine the transaction of sale of immovable property.

3.1.1 Ms. Shah replied to all the notices.

3.2 Subsequently, an order under Section 143(3) came to be passed on 12.09.2017, whereby, the returned income of Ms. Shah was accepted as the assessed income.

3.3 The original assessee, i.e. Ms. Shah, passed away on 16.02.2021. Pursuant to the same, Respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice, Dated: 27.03.2021, under Section 148 of the Act, asking late Ms. Shah to file return of income.

3.3.1 It seems that the present petitioner, being the heir and legal representative of late Ms. Shah, filed the return of income and he also sought the reasons for re-opening vide communication dated 15.04.2021.

3.3.2 Pursuant to the above, the reasons for reopening were supplied to the petitioner, against which the petitioner filed the objections. However, Respondent No.2 disposed of the same vide order dated 30.06.2021.

3.4 Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed the present petition, wherein, this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph-7(c) vide order dated 22.03.2022.

3.4.1 Despite of the above, during the pendency of the present petition, the Respondents-authorities passed the assessment order on 29.03.2023 and therefore, the petitioner amended the present petition. Thereafter, this Court, once again, granted ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph-7(cb) vide order dated 31.03.2022.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice, which is issued under Section 148 of the Act, is issued against the dead person and therefore, the same is bad in law and is also void ab initio, since, a notice cannot be issued against the dead person.

4.1 In support of the above submission, learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, placed reliance on the decision of this Court, rendered in the case of ‘Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. ITO’, reported in 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat).

4.2 It was, further, submitted that the notice, under Section 148 of the Act, was issued in the name of the legal heir of late Ms. Shah, i.e. the present petitioner, which is also bad and illegal.

4.3 It was pointed out that after 01.04.2021, a notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued, only as per the amended provisions of the Act and therefore, it was submitted that the impugned notice, which is issued without following the amended provisions of the Act, is bad and illegal.

4.3.1 In support of the same, learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘UOI & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal’, reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC).

4.4 It was, further, submitted that the Second Notice is issued, without recording the reasons or seeking the approval for the same, in the name of the dead person, i.e. Ms. Shah, which is not permissible under the law.

4.4.1 It was also submitted that the Second Notice is issued, without dropping the First Notice, which was issued to the dead person, i.e. Ms. Shah, which is not permissible.

4.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the Respondent-authorities passed the order of assessme