PAWAN VERMA L/R OF LATE SMT. VIDYA VERMA, S/O LATE KISHAN LAL VERMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/9104/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02041348202309 April 2024Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices and proceedings initiated against a dead person are a nullity. This legal position was declared to be no longer res integra, citing two previous Division Bench orders of the Rajasthan High Court: Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Legal Heirs of Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari Vs. Income tax Officers & Ors. In the latter case, liberty was granted to the Department to re-initiate proceedings under Section 148A(b) and Section 159 of the Act, with a specific direction to exclude the period between the filing of the writ petition and its disposal from the computation of the limitation period. The Court noted that if the Department decides to proceed against the legal representatives, they will have the opportunity to raise the ground of limitation. The writ petition was allowed to the extent stated.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pawan Verma, is the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Vidya Verma. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(3), Jaipur, initiated proceedings under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing notices. These notices were initially issued against the deceased, Smt. Vidya Verma. The petitioner challenged these proceedings before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The core of the challenge was that the proceedings were initiated against a dead person, rendering them a nullity. The assessment years are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the issuance of notices under Section 148A(b) and the passing of an order under Section 148A(d), which the petitioner contested via a writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing notices under Clause (b) thereof, culminating in an order under Clause (d), are a nullity if the notices were initially issued against a deceased person? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the initial notice issued on 08.04.2021 against the deceased person was itself barred by limitation, and therefore, the entire proceedings were a nullity. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, relying on a Division Bench order of the Rajasthan High Court in Meena V Kumar Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, submitted that they should be granted liberty to initiate proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 159

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JP:17168-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9104/2023 Pawan Verma L/R of Late Smt. Vidya Verma, S/o Late Kishan Lal Verma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 181, 1st Floor, Ayodhya Marg, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, Secretariat, Building, New Delhi, 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya Advocate with Mr. Hemang Gargieya Advocate and Mr. Peeyush Gargieya Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate with Mr. Aditya Khandelwal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order 09/04/2024

1.

Heard.

2.

The short issue arising for consideration in this case is whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by issuing notices under Clause (b) therein, culminating in passing of an order under Clause (d) thereof, would be a nullity as the notices were initially issued against a dead person.

3.

On this issue, learned counsel for the parties bring to the notice of this Court an order dated 27.05.2022 passed by Division Bench

[2024:RJ-JP:17168-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9104/2023] of this Court at Jaipur in Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 7896/2022] as also another order dated 27.02.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Legal Heirs of Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari Vs. Income tax Officers & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9985/2023].

4.

After going through the said orders, the legal position is no longer res integra and it can be declared that notices and proceedings against dead person would be a nullity.

5.

In the case of Legal Heirs of Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari(supra), the Division Bench of this Court has also granted liberty to the Department to re-initiate the proceedings under Section 148A(b) and Section 159 of the Act with specific order that the limitation period between the filing of the writ petition and till its disposal shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation period for initiating such proceedings.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the revenue, relying upon order dated 22.03.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Meena V Kumar Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15115/2022) would submit that the respondents may be granted liberty to initiate the proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even the initial notice which was issued on 08.04.2021 against the dead person itself was barred by limitation.

[2024:RJ-JP:17168-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9104/2023]

7.

Be that as it may, if Respondent no. 1-Department decides to proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased, they will have the opportunity to assail the same on the ground that it is beyond the period of limitation. 8 Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the manner and to the extent as stated above. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI /147

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →