Mitali Palnitkar
Published On: February 18, 2022 at 16:13 IST
The Delhi High Court held that a Reassessment Notice issued against a dead person under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is null and void.
The Division Bench comprised of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan. It relied on the Case of Savita Kapila v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to clarify the validity of notice and consequent proceedings against a dead person.
A Petition was filed challenging a Notice issued by a Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Act, the consequential proceedings including the orders passed by the Assessing Officer.
The Petition was filed by the son of the deceased Assessee to whom the notice was issued. The Petitioner claimed that he did not receive the Notice. Thus, another Notice was issued in the name of Assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act.
Later, a Show Cause Notice was issued as no reply was received for the previous notices. Thereafter, a Notice of Penalty Proceedings was issued against the Assessee under Sections 221(1) and 271(1)(b).
The Petitioner challenged the Notices and the consequent Proceedings on the ground that they were initiated against a person who had died before the Notice was issued. It was claimed that the Proceedings were Void ab initio.
The Respondent submitted that a Notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act at the same address of the Assessee available in the ITD database. It was contended that the Notice was duly served as it was not received back by the Respondent. The Respondent only received back the Assessment Order mentioning that the Addressee had died.
It was argued that though the notices were duly served at the address provided, the fact that the Assessee had died was not communicated by the legal heirs. It was stated that the Petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing a Statutory Appeal and thus the Court shall not entertain the Petition.
However, the Court allowed the Petition. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was declared as null and void, and was set aside by the Court. It stated that the consequent proceedings including the Assessment Order were liable to be set aside.