Rajkumar Harlalka Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court allowed Rajkumar Harlalka’s writ petition challenging the order dated 29 June 2025 under Section 148A(3) and consequential notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2021-22. The proceedings originated from a Show Cause Notice dated 31 March 2025 under Section 148A(1), issued in the name of the deceased assessee, Balkrishna Sohanlal Harlalka, who had died on 4 April 2023. The Petitioner had applied on 3 May 2023 to be registered as legal heir and representative, and the Department approved the application on 4 May 2023. The Court held that compliance with Section 148A(1) is a condition precedent to an order under Section 148A(3) and a valid notice under Section 148, and that a notice issued to a person who was no longer alive did not satisfy that requirement. Relying on Sumit Balkrishna Gupta and N. Binoj, the Court held that issuing notice to the correct person is a foundational jurisdictional requirement and that subsequent substitution of the legal representative could not validate proceedings that were non-est at inception. The Court also held that Section 159(2)(b) requires proceedings to be taken against the legal representative and does not validate a notice issued to a dead person. The Section 148A(1) Show Cause Notice, Section 148A(3) order, Section 148 notice and consequential proceedings were therefore quashed and set aside. The Court clarified that the Department was not precluded from initiating fresh proceedings against the legal representative for the concerned assessment year in accordance with law, including applicable limitation requirements. Rule was made absolute and the petition was disposed of without costs.
