Case Law Details
Urmila Saxena Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings against a deceased assessee in the case of Urmila Saxena Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes.
Background and Facts:
Urmila Saxena, the petitioner, is an old widow and legal heir of the late Shri Kamal Kumar Saxena, the deceased assessee. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice under Section 148A(b) for the assessment year 2015-16, dated 08.04.2022, and the order under Section 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022. The entire re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the deceased, leading the petitioner to contend that they are void ab initio and without jurisdiction.
The petitioner, an old and ailing homemaker, argued that the notice and proceedings were illegal, as the deceased had passed away on 09/11/2020, and the legal principle dictates that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable in law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
