Case Law Details
Ela Roy Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)
Petitioner being the sister of the noticee, in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act has filed the return. Petitioner submits that she being a lay person, due to inadvertence has filed the return on behalf of her brother noticee though she had already informed the department at the same time that the noticee has already expired. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no proceeding can be initiated against a dead person and the assessing offier after having notice and knowledge that the noticee has already expired should not have proceeded and passed the final assessment order against the noticee.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as appears from record the aforesaid impugned notice dated 28th March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid notice are quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
