Nishant Daxeshbhai Mehta Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court, in the case of Nishant Daxeshbhai Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer, has quashed an order issued under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were initiated against a deceased individual. The petitioner, Nishant Daxeshbhai Mehta, had sought the quashing of these proceedings related to his late father, Mr. Daxeshkumar Ranjitrai Mehta, for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The case originated when the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Bardoli, issued a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to Mr. Daxeshkumar Ranjitrai Mehta. The petitioner responded on February 24, 2021, informing the authorities that his father had passed away on January 27, 2021, and provided a copy of the death certificate. Despite this notification, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was subsequently issued on April 19, 2021, in the name of the deceased.
Further proceedings saw a notice under Section 148A(b) issued to the petitioner via the online portal on May 28, 2022. Although the petitioner did not actively participate in these subsequent proceedings, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed on July 27, 2022.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the notice under Section 148 was invalid and unenforceable as it was issued in the name of a person who had already died. This argument rested on the legal principle that any proceedings initiated against a deceased person are considered null and void.
The High Court referenced two significant judicial precedents in its decision. The first was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Income-tax Officer vs. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai [(2021) 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC)], which held that a notice for assessment or re-assessment proceedings issued against a dead person is null and void and cannot be sustained. The second precedent cited was the Gujarat High Court’s own decision in Himadri Kandarp Mehta vs. Income-tax Officer [(2022) 144 taxmann.com 34 (Gujarat)], where similar facts led to a similar conclusion.
The court observed that despite the petitioner having informed the authorities of his father’s demise with a death certificate, the Revenue proceeded with the notice and passed the order. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the impugned notice, being issued in the name of a dead person, was unenforceable and invalid. As a result, the subsequent order passed based on such an invalid notice was also rendered illegal and was therefore quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Application filed by Nishant Daxeshbhai Mehta was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
