Kinshuk Goel Legal Heir of Late Shri Vijay Shanker Goel Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that the requirement of issuing notice in the name of a right person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. Thus, notice u/s. 148A(b) issued in the name of deceased person invalid.
Facts- The present Writ Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who is the son of late Sh. Vijay Shankar Goel, assessee, therein, assailing the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.05.2022, impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated 30.07.2022 and the notice under Section 148 both even dated 30.07.2022 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
Conclusion- In the case of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(7), Surat v. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara [2020] 114 com 481 (Guj.), Court had set aside the reassessment proceedings on the ground that no valid notice under Section 148 could be issued against a dead person.
The requirement of issuing notice in the name of a right person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. Admittedly, both the impugned notices dated 26.05.2022 and 30.07.2022 are in the name of the deceased person. Petitioner had duly informed the Department about the death of the assessee and had even furnished the particulars of the legal heirs on the Income Tax Portal. Having derived knowledge of the death of the assessee and the particulars of the legal heirs, it was incumbent upon the respondents who have taken remedial measures by revising the notice in the name of the legal heirs, which admittedly, has not been done in the present case. Since the petitioner had already informed the Department about the death of the deceased, his participation in the reassessment proceedings cannot be regarded as waiver or submitting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without objection. The notice under Section 148A (b) dated 26.05.2022 therefore suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional error, having been issued in the name of a dead person. Not only this, the proceedings initiated consequent to such notice have also been proposed in the name of a dead person.
