MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2976/2025HC DelhiDLHC01012420202510 March 2025Author: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The Court's decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue and the undertaking provided by the petitioner. The Revenue acknowledged that the notices were issued against a deceased assessee and agreed to their quashing, provided the petitioner updated the legal heir details on the portal. The petitioner, on instructions, agreed to this condition. The Court bound the petitioner to this undertaking and directed them to update and upload the details of the legal heirs/legal representative on the Revenue's portal within three weeks from the date of the order. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The primary issue of maintainability against a deceased assessee was resolved through this procedural compliance and concession.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Mittal, as the legal heir of the deceased Devender Mittal, filed four writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. These petitions challenged notices dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The core of the petitioner's argument was the maintainability of such notices when issued against a deceased assessee. The Revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the notices could be quashed if the petitioner undertook to update the details of the legal heirs on the Income Tax portal as per the prescribed rules.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable against a deceased assessee? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be validly issued against a deceased assessee, making the proceedings initiated pursuant to such notices non-maintainable. The petitioner relied on the principle that legal proceedings generally require a living party or a properly constituted legal representative. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, fairly conceded that the impugned notices could be quashed. However, this concession was made conditional upon the petitioner being directed to update and upload the details of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on the Income Tax portal in accordance with the prescribed rules and format. The Revenue did not otherwise contest the maintainability issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 2976/2025
W.P.(C) 2977/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~92, 93, 95 and 96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2976/2025 & CM APPL. 14094/2025, CM APPL. 14095/2025 MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Mr. Shanntanu Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Mr. Manish Yadav and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocates versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yogit Pareek, Junior Standing Counsel. Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI. (93) + W.P.(C) 2977/2025 & CM APPL. 14096/2025, CM APPL. 14097/2025 MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Mr. Shanntanu Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Mr. Manish Yadav and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocates versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivendra Singh

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

and Mr. Yogit Pareek, Junior Standing Counsel.

Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI.

(95) + W.P.(C) 2979/2025 & CM APPL. 14103/2025, CM APPL. 14104/2025

MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Mr. Shanntanu Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Mr. Manish Yadav and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocates

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yogit Pareek, Junior Standing Counsel.

Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI.

(96) + W.P.(C) 2980/2025 & CM APPL. 14105/2025, CM APPL.14106/2025

MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Mr. Shanntanu Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Mr. Manish Yadav and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocates

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yogit Pareek, Junior Standing Counsel.

Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2/UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

10.03.

2025

1.

Present set of petitions have been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned notices dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the said impugned notices, alongwith several other prayers.

2.

The short issue raised by the petitioner in the present set of writ petitions is as to whether a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be issued against an assessee, since deceased and is maintainable.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submits that the impugned notices in question can be quashed as the same have been issued against the assessee (since deceased) on the condition that the petitioner (legal heir) be directed to update and upload the details of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on the portal as per the prescribed rules and format.

5.

Mr. Gautam Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is willing to update and upload the details of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

legal heirs of the deceased assessee, namely, late Mr. Devender Mittal.

6.

In view of the above statement, binding the petitioner to such statement and undertaking, the impugned notices dated 30.03.2024 for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall update and upload the details of the legal heirs/legal representative on the portal of the Revenue within 3 weeks from date.

7.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any, without any order as to costs.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 10, 2025/rl This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →