Rohit Baveja vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/35859/2024HC Madhya Pradesh15 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI3 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased person cannot be sustained. The Court reasoned that the notice under Section 148 is the foundation for reopening an assessment, and the prerequisite for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen is that such notice must be issued to the correct person, meaning not a dead person. The Court acknowledged that the judgment in Meet Lalwani (supra) did not consider the effect of Section 159A of the Act. However, finding the issue covered by the precedent set in Meet Lalwani (supra), the Court quashed the impugned assessment orders. The Court also noted that the effect of Section 159 of the Act was not considered in Meet Lalwani (supra) and granted liberty to the respondents/Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rohit Baveja, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders passed by the respondents. These orders were issued pursuant to notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against his deceased father. The petitioner had informed the Income Tax Department about his father's death on April 29, 2021, during the assessment proceedings. He argued that assessment proceedings cannot continue against a dead person and that he should have been impleaded as the legal representative under Section 159(2)(a) of the Act. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Indore Bench of the High Court in the case of Meet Lalwani, L/h of late Mrs. Amita Lalwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, which held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is unenforceable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether assessment orders passed pursuant to notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased person are legally valid and enforceable, particularly when the death was intimated to the department. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that assessment proceedings cannot continue against a dead person. He argued that upon intimation of death, the department should have impleaded him as the legal representative as per Section 159(2)(a) of the Act. He relied on the High Court's decision in Meet Lalwani (supra) holding notices in the name of a dead person as unenforceable. Revenue's Contention: The revenue opposed the prayer, arguing that the judgment in Meet Lalwani (supra) is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts and circumstances, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 159(2)(a),Section 159A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 35859 of 2024 ROHIT BAVEJA Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sapan Usrethe - learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth Sharma - learned counsel for the respondents. ORDER Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the legality, validity and propriety of impugned orders dated 24.4.2023, annexure P/1, 20.3.2024, annexure P/2, 21.3.2024, annexure P/3, 23.3.2024, annexure P/4 passed by respondent no.3 and 6.7.2022, annexure P/10 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the respondents have passed the assessment orders against dead person in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had informed with regard to the death of his father during the assessment 1 WP-35859-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1671 Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 17-01-2025 14:42:57 Signature Not Verified

proceedings in compliance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his father died on 29.4.2021, therefore, a fresh notice ought to have been issued in the name of the petitioner (son), since no proceedings under section 142(1) can continue against a dead person. The petitioner had timely informed the Department regarding the death of his father. In spite of the aforesaid, no action was taken to implead him as LRs, as envisaged under section 159(2)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the effect of section 159 was not considered in the order. It is further contended that similar issue arising out of the issuance of notice under section 142(1) is no more res integra and the same has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Meet Lalwani, L/h of late Mrs.Amita Lalwani Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2024) 337 CTR (MP) 602, wherein it is held that notice issued in the name of dead person is unenforceable in the eyes of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue opposed the prayer and contended that the judgment in the case of Meet Lalwani (supra) is different and cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that this Court has already taken a decision in the case of Meet Lalwani (supra) wherein it is held that issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in the name of deceased cannot be sustained. The issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to 2 WP-35859-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1671 Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 17-01-2025 14:42:57 Signature Not Verified

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of correct person meaning thereby the same should not have been issued in the name of dead person. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 159 A of the Act of 1961 has not been taken into consideration in the case of Meet Lalwani (supra). 7. In view of the fact that the issue involved in the present petition being covered by the judgment of Meet Lalwani (supra), this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned orders dated 24.4.2023, annexure P/1, 20.3.2024, annexure P/2, 21.3.2024, annexure P/3, 23.3.2024, annexure P/4 passed by respondent no.3 and 6.7.2022, annexure P/10 passed by respondent no.2. 8. Accordingly, the impugned notices dated 24.4.2023, annexure P/1, 20.3.2024, annexure P/2, 21.3.2024, annexure P/3, 23.3.2024, annexure P/4 passed by respondent no.3 and 6.7.2022, annexure P/10 passed by respondent no.2 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, looking to the fact that the effect of Section 159 of the Act has not been considered in the case of Meet Lalwani (supra), the respondents/Department would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 10. No order as to cost. HS

3 WP-35859-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1671 Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 17-01-2025 14:42:57 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →