2024 (12) TMI 392 - SCH - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - defects in notices issued against a dead person - right of legal representatives - as decided by HC 2024 (10) TMI 1618 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT notices are alleged to be defective on the ground that the same were issued against a dead person, but the contents of the notices issued from time to time show that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the notice along with the name of his deceased father. Physical assessment carried out by the respondents is subjected to challenge in the second round of petition, whereas the petitioner was satisfied with the direction issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation that he may be supplied with reasons. As ordered that if the petitioner deposits 20% of the demand in each case within a period of one month, recovery of balance amount under assessment orders and demand notices issued in aforesaid cases, shall remain in abeyance. HELD THAT - We are not inclined to issue notice in the present special leave petitions, as the matter is still sub judice before the High Court and only an interim order has been passed. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner has not inherited the estate of his deceased father. Reference is also made to Section 159(6) and submitted that the direction to pay 20% of the demand was never an issue which was urged and argued before the High Court. If that be so, it will be open to the petitioner, Samir Andrea Kasliwal, to file a petition/application for review before the High Court pointing out the above facts. If any such petition/application is filed, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law. We, however, clarify that we have not made any comments on how the review petition/application should be decided. The right of the petitioner, to challenge the present impugned order, after the decision of the review petition/application, is preserved.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions as the matter is still pending before the High Court. The petitioner can file a review petition pointing out relevant facts. The right to challenge the impugned order is preserved after the decision of the review petition.