SANTOSH KANAKMAL MUNOT LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI KANAKLAL RAMCHAND MUNOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the death of the assessee cannot be proceeded with. The Court reasoned that the fundamental principle is that legal proceedings, including the issuance of statutory notices for reassessment, must be initiated against a living entity or their legal representatives, not a deceased individual. Since the assessee had expired prior to the issuance of the notices, the notices were rendered illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the notices were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed the writ petitions, making the rule absolute. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law, implying they could initiate appropriate proceedings if permissible under the law, likely against the legal heir or estate.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Santosh Kanakmal Munot, is the legal heir of the deceased assessee, Shri Kanaklal Ramchand Munot. The assessee expired on April 24, 2014. The Income Tax Officer issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 31, 2021, for assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The petitioner filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging these notices. The Revenue did not dispute that notices under Section 148 cannot be issued to a deceased person.
What were the issues?
1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a deceased assessee are illegal and void ab initio? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are illegal and void ab initio because the assessee, Shri Kanaklal Ramchand Munot, had expired on April 24, 2014, prior to the issuance of the notices. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute the position that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act could not have been issued against a dead person.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER:
Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the assessee against whom notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued has already expired.
In the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the impugned notices dated 31.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are illegal and void ab 1026&1027 initio in view of the fact that the assessee Kanakchand had expired on 24th April, 2014. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute the position that notice under section 148 could not have been issued against the dead person.
In view of this position, in our view, notices issued in both these matters after the death of assessee cannot be proceeded with and accordingly they are quashed and set aside.
Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to act upon authenticated copy of the order.
The respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. ( S. G. MEHARE, J. ) ( R.D. DHANUKA, J. ) JPC
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
