Case Law Details
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
Heard learned advocate Mr.Manish J. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Karan Sangani with learned advocate Ms.Kalpana Raval for the respondent.
2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order under Section 148A(d) dated 27.07.2022 and notice issued under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, together with a relief of directing the respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3.Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 was issued by the respondent officer in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14 on his father late Mr.Daxeshkumar Ranjitrai Mehta alleging that the income for that year has escaped assessment. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Bardoli, issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking petitioner’s father to submit details. On 24.02.2021, the petitioner replied to the said notice and informed that his father Mr. Daxeshkumar Ranjitrai Mehta has died on 27.01.2021 and a copy of Death Certificate was also annexed with the said reply. However, the respondent issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.04.2021. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that notice under Section 148A(b) dated 28.05.2022 was issued to the petitioner on the online portal. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not taken part in the proceedings. However, the said notice under Section 148A(b) was culminated into an order under Section 148A(d) dated 27.07.2022 under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and unenforceable in the eye of law as the same was issued in the name of a dead person.
5. The question involved in the present petition is no more res integra. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Bhpendra Bhikhalal Desai, reported in (2021) 131taxmann.com 40 (SC).
6.In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held and observed that notice issued for commencement of the assessment or re-assessment proceedings against a dead person is null and void and the notice which has been issued against the dead assessee could not be sustained.
7. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts involved in Himadri Kandarp Mehta vs. Income-tax Officer, reported in (2022) 144 taxmann.com 34 (Gujarat).
8. In the present case petitioner has informed the Authority about the death of his father Shri Daxeshkumar Ranjitrai Mehta by writing a letter and by submitting death certificate. Despite this, the Revenue proceeded with the notice and passed order dated 27.07.2022.
9. The impugned notice was issued in the name of a dead person which is unenforceable and invalid. It is well-settled principle that any proceedings against a dead person is a nullity. Pursuant to such invalid and unenforceable notice, any order passed below the notice becomes illegal and unenforceable and it is required to be quashed and set aside.
Resultantly, the order under Section 148A(d) dated 27.07.2022 and notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Application is allowed.
Author Bio
