RAGHAV NAGARMAL BIRLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
SCA/17908/2021HC GujaratGJHC24064306202119 January 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a reopening notice issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid notice in the eyes of law. The Court relied on its prior decision in the case of Bharti Harendra Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara, which established this legal position. Consequently, the writ application was allowed. The impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, and all subsequent consequential notices, along with the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, were quashed and set aside. The Court also noted that a fresh notice issued against the deceased assessee on the previous day was also to be ignored as invalid. The ratio decidendi is that statutory notices under the Income Tax Act must be issued to living assessees or their legal representatives, and a notice to a deceased person without proper substitution is a nullity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raghav Nagarmal Birla, filed a writ application before the High Court of Gujarat challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 30, 2021, and a subsequent notice under Section 142(1) dated November 10, 2021, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued in the name of a deceased person. The assessee provided a death certificate showing the original assessee expired on November 10, 2017, while the notice was issued in March 2021. The Revenue was represented by its counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased person is a valid notice in the eyes of law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued in the name of a deceased individual, citing the death certificate as proof. The assessee relied on the High Court's decision in Bharti Harendra Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/17908/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17908 of 2021 ========================================================== RAGHAV NAGARMAL BIRLA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ========================================================== Appearance: MS SHRUNJAL T SHAH(10617) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MR BHATT & MR KARAN SANGHANI FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 19/01/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE) Leave to correct the cause title is granted. Necessary correction shall be carried out at the earliest. 1. By this writ application, the writ applicant – assessee is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for direction to quash and set aside the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2021 as well as subsequent notice dated 10.11.2021 under Section 142 (1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. We have heard Ms. Shrunjal T. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant as well as Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel along with Mr. Karana Sanghani, the learned counsel for the respondent Authority. 3. It is not in dispute that the impugned notice is in the name of a dead person. The writ applicant has placed on record the Page 1 of 2

C/SCA/17908/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022 certified copy of the death certificate of the original assessee, wherein it is reflected that the original assessee has expired on 10.11.2017. As against that the impugned notice came to be issued on 30.03.2021 followed by the notice dated 10.11.2021. 4. The issue raised in the present writ application is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this High Court in the case of Bharti Harendra Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara reported in [2019] 109 taxmann.com 389 (Guj.), wherein this Court has held that reopening notice issued in the name of a dead person would not be a valid notice in the eye of law. 4. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the present writ application succeeds and accordingly, is allowed. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 as well as all other consequential notices are hereby quashed and set aside as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. 5. At this stage, Ms. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant pointed out that yesterday also, the Department has issued a fresh notice under Section 141 against the deceased assessee. In view of the aforesaid, such notice also shall be ignored as it would a invalid notice. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Y.N. VYAS Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →