Ghanyashyam Anil Dhanani Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that proceedings initiated based on notice issued in name of dead person wouldn’t be valid by subsequent participation of legal representatives. Accordingly, order set aside.
Facts- Notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued in the name of Anil Pragji Dhanani who had in fact died prior thereto on 02.09.2016. In response to the said notice on 07.06.2022, reply was given by stating that his father, the assessee had passed away, though the Chartered Accountant informing that the assessee had passed away; thereafter another communication was issued on 19.07.2022 by the respondents seeking details of the legal representatives of the original assessee. The same was responded to by the Chartered Accountant and on becoming aware of the legal representatives of the deceased-original assessee order dated 30.07.2022 was passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the very next day of 31.07.2022, another order was passed u/s. 148A(d) in the name of the legal representatives of the deceased-original assessee.
High Court noted that since the legal representatives were substituted by the respondents and thereafter the proceeding could be continued, disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that the legal representatives could take all contentions available to them except the fact that the initial notice was issued in the name of a dead person and consequently disposed of the Writ Petition.
