Case Law Details
Neelam Dhingra Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Introduction: The legal intricacies surrounding the notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148 against a deceased person were at the forefront in the case of Neelam Dhingra vs. DCIT. This article delves into the crucial aspects of the case, emphasizing the invalidity of the reassessment notice and the subsequent legal fallacies.
Detailed Analysis: In this case, the Assessing Officer issued a notice for reopening the assessment under Section 148 against Neelam Dhingra, who had passed away. Despite being informed of the demise and provided with the death certificate, the Assessing Officer not only proceeded with the invalid reopening but also continued the reassessment proceedings, issuing notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) in the name of the deceased.
The legal representative of the deceased pointed out this glaring error, citing relevant judicial precedents that deemed such actions invalid. The arguments rested on the violation of principles of natural justice, with no notice issued to the legal heirs, and the continuation of proceedings against a dead person.
The case law referred to, including Rupa Shyam Sunder Dhumatkar vs. ACIT, Alamelu Veerappan vs. ITO, Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. ACIT, Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, and ITO vs. Late Shri Ram Kumar, emphasized the importance of issuing notices to legal heirs and the invalidity of reassessment against deceased individuals.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
