Shri Devendra S/o Vasudeo Jambhulkar Vs Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed the writ petition filed by Shri Devendra S/o. Vasudeo Jambhulkar, legal heir of late Vasudeo Damduji Jambhulkar, and held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the name of a deceased assessee, together with all consequential proceedings, was null and void. The deceased assessee had died on 08.07.2020, whereas the notice under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2016-17 was issued in his name on 31.03.2021. During his lifetime, he had filed the return declaring taxable income of Rs.5,57,090/- and exempt income of Rs.9,31,12,500/- from sale of agricultural land claimed exempt under Section 10(37), and the return had been processed under Section 143(1). Despite the subsequent death, notices under Sections 148, 142(1) and 144 continued to be issued in the deceased assessee’s name and a reassessment order under Sections 147 read with 144 was ultimately passed, raising a demand of Rs.5,89,18,411/-.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition principally on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy and contended that the petitioner had participated in the reassessment proceedings. The Court rejected that objection, holding that an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. Relying upon, among others, [Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.], the Court held that there is no statutory obligation upon legal heirs to intimate the Department about the death of the assessee or to cancel the PAN merely to validate proceedings otherwise initiated against a dead person. The Court further considered Section 292BB and held that its operation presupposes appearance or cooperation by the assessee himself. In the present case, the assessee was dead and it was his son who appeared and perhaps cooperated; therefore, the foundational condition for invoking Section 292BB was absent.
