2022 (6) TMI 695 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice against a dead person - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the issue in the present case is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Savita Kapila 2020 (7) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT which was followed by this Court in Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara L/H late Sh. Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta 2021 (7) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein the notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person was held to be null and void and all consequential proceedings/orders, including the assessment order and subsequent notices were set aside. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a deceased assessee.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned notices dated 26.05.2022, 25.11.2021, and 06.04.2021 related to the assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by Respondent No.1. The petitioner, being the son of the deceased assessee, argued that the notices were invalid as they were issued against a deceased person. Despite informing the tax authorities about the demise of the assessee, subsequent notices were sent, including one dated 26.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the statutory requirement of serving a notice under Section 148 was not fulfilled as the assessee had passed away before the issuance of the first notice.

The petitioner relied on previous judgments by Division Benches of the Court, such as Savita Kapila v. Assistant CIT and Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara L/H late Sh. Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-22, New Delhi, which held that a notice under Section 148 against a deceased person is null and void. Additionally, a recent order in Sangeeta Vig L/H Late Sh. Sunil Vig v. ITO, Ward 28(5), Delhi further supported this argument. The respondent argued that the notices were issued based on a Supreme Court order but failed to address whether such notices could be issued in cases where the assesses had passed away.

After considering the arguments, the Court found that the case fell within the scope of previous judgments by Division Benches of the Court. Citing relevant portions from the judgment in Sangeeta Vig case, the Court concluded that the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The respondents were allowed to take further steps permitted by law, and the petitioner was granted the right to seek remedies in accordance with the law if aggrieved.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notices were declared invalid. The Court emphasized that the respondents could take lawful steps, and the petitioner had the right to pursue legal remedies if necessary.