Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12785
$~38, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 60, 63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.07.2024 + W.P.(C) 5789/2021 PRATEEK SONI L/H OF RAJENDAR KUMAR DECEASED .....Petitioner Through: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Shivang Bansal, Adv.
versus NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC and Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Vineet Gupta, Ms. Anauntta Shankar and Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Advs.
49 + W.P.(C) 10322/2022 SANGITA SHARMA L/H LATE SHRI YOGESH SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv.
versus ITO, WARD 62(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms.
Easha, Advs.
50 + W.P.(C) 12055/2022 NARENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL L/H LATE SMT HITESH KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv.
versus Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5789/2021 & Other connected matters Page 1 of 14 Digitally Signed ITO, WARD 43(6), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Mr.
Shivansh B Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya & Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advs.
53 + W.P.(C) 13202/2022 CHANCHAL SINGH (LEGAL HEIR OF RAJESHWARI SINGH) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Goel, Adv.
versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36 (1)
DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms.
Easha, Advs.
54 + W.P.(C) 16745/2022 VIVEK JAIN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, Adv.
versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 28(1) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Ms.
Hemlata Rawat and V.K.
Saksena, Advs.
56 + W.P.(C) 1389/2023 DHARMENDRA DEO MISHRA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. KAMAL MISHRA) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Inder Paul Bansal, Mr.
Vivek Bansal and Mr. Vishal Chechi, Advs.
versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 71(1), NEW DELHI Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5789/2021 & Other connected matters Page 2 of 14 Digitally Signed & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla,, SSC, Ms.
Pratishtha Chaudhary and Ms.
Simran Jha, Advs.
60 + W.P.(C) 2912/2023 SMT SMRITI BHATIA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SH ANKUR BHATIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mrs. Husnal Syali Nagi and Mr. Tarun Singh, Advs.
versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms.
Easha, Advs.
63 + W.P.(C) 6007/2023 SMT NEERA GUPTA L/H OF LATE SH SANJEEV KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv.
versus ITO, WARD 46(4), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral)
1. These writ petitions impugn actions for reassessment undertaken under the Income Tax Act, 19611. The principal ground
1 Act Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5789/2021 & Other connected matters Page 3 of 14 Digitally Signed of challenge which is raised is that the notices were addressed in the name of assessees who had by then expired.
2. Before us, the following details have been provided insofar as some of the writ petitions are concerned. Those details which have been set out in tabular form are reproduced hereinbelow: -
| Item No. | WP(C) No. | Cause List | Date of Death | Date of intimation of death to department |
| 38 | W.P.(C) 5789/2021 | Prateek Soni L/h of Rajendar Kumar deceased vs. NFAC. | 30.09.2020 | 07.03.2021(Annex „F‟ @ pg |
| 48 | W.P.(C) 9297/2022 | Hardeep Singh being legal heir of Late Sardar Sawarup Singh vs. ITO. Ward 68(5) New Delhi &Anr. | 19.01.2022 | 23.03.2022 |
| 49 | W.P.(C) 10322/2022 | Sangita Sharma L/H Late Shri Yogesh Sharma vs. ITO, Ward 62(1), Delhi | 02.03.2015 | 23.03.2022(Annex „D‟ @ pages 32- 34) |
| 50 | W.P.(C) 12055/2022 | Narender Kumar Aggarwal L/H Late Smt Hitesh Kumari vs. ITO, Ward 43(6). Delhi | 19.02.2022 | 20.05.2022(Annex „D‟ @ Pgs. 28-29) |
| 53 | W.P.(C) 13202/2022 | Chanchal Singh (Legal Heir Of Rajeshwari Singh) vs. ITO, Ward 36 (1) Delhi | 24.05.2021 | 27.07.2021 |
| 54 | W.P.(C) 16745/2022 | Vivek Jain legal representative of late Mahavir Prasad Jain v/s DCIT, Circle 28(1) & Anr. | 07.08.2020 | 18.03.2021 |
| 55 | W.P.(C) 17319/2022 | Vikram Bhatnagar (as | 10.03.2018 | 06.10.2018 (Annex „G‟ @ |
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5789/2021 & Other connected matters Page 4 of 14 Digitally Signed
| legal representative, acting for and on behalf of legal heirs of late Sh. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar (deceased). vs. ACIT Circle- 28(1), New Delhi &Ors. | pgs. 126-128) | |||
| 56 | W.P.(C) 1389/2023 | Dharmendra Deo Mishra (legal heir of Late Smt. Kamal Mishra) v ITO, ward 71(1), New Delhi &Ors. | 18.04.2017 | 28.03.2018 (Annex „P13‟ @ pg. 86) |
3. As is manifest from the above, although the petitioners assert that the factum of the original assessees being no more was duly intimated, the notices were neither amended nor addressed to the legal representatives. We note that while dealing with an identical challenge, we had in Pradeep Jain vs. Income Tax Officer2 noticed the legal position as enunciated by this Court in the following terms: -
“14. We note the pertinent observations of this court in the case of Savita Kapila v. Asst. CIT [(2020) 426 ITR 502 (Delhi); 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2540.] , wherein, while dealing with the identical question, it has been held that the prerequisite for issuing a notice in the name of the correct person and not in the name of a dead person is sine qua non for acquiring the jurisdiction and initiating the action under section 148 of the Act. The court while setting aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Act to a dead person held as follows (page 510 of 426 ITR):
“In the present case the notice dated March 31, 2019 under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the deceased-assessee after the date of his death (December 21, 2018) and thus inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under section 148 of the Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the present instance.
2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4722 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5789/2021 & Other connected matters Page 5 of 14 Digitally Signed In the opinion of this court the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act is the foundation for reopening of an assessment. Consequently, the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condit
