SHRI S.K. GUPTA (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SMT. ANGOORI DEVI GUPTA) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 54(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6195/2023HC DelhiDLHC01017828202327 February 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that while the initial notice dated 31 March 2021 was indeed issued in the name of a deceased assessee, the respondents subsequently undertook a course correction. They issued a fresh notice on 21 March 2022 under Section 148A(b), which was addressed to the late Angoori Devi Gupta 'Through legal heir and Son Sh. S.K Gupta'. This subsequent notice was approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, thereby complying with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act. The Court held that the notice of 21 March 2022 could not be construed as a continuation of the original Section 148 notice, as the latter was considered non est by the petitioner's own submission. Since these were the only grounds pressed before the Court, and the subsequent proceedings were found to be in order, the challenge was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri S.K. Gupta (Legal Representative of Late Smt. Angoori Devi Gupta), challenged reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The challenge was primarily against a notice dated 31 March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that this initial notice was invalid as it was issued in the name of the assessee who had already passed away. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 21 March 2022 was issued to the deceased assessee through her legal heir, followed by an order under Section 148A(d) dated 04 April 2022 and a consequential notice under Section 148 on the same date. The petitioner contended that the original notice was non est and that the subsequent notices did not cure this defect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31 March 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was framed in the name of a deceased assessee, thereby failing to comply with the requirements of the Act, specifically concerning the identity of the assessee and the approval under Section 151. Assessee's contention: The initial notice dated 31 March 2021 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, Late Angoori Devi Gupta, despite the respondents being aware of her demise. This renders the notice non est and invalid. Furthermore, the approval obtained for this notice was by a Joint Commissioner (Range-52, Delhi), which the assessee argued was not in accordance with the requirements of Section 151 of the Act. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the initial notice. However, it notes that the revenue issued a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) on 21 March 2022, addressed to the deceased assessee through her legal heir, which was approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, thus complying with Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6195/2023 SHRI S.K. GUPTA (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SMT. ANGOORI DEVI GUPTA) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 54(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

27.02.

2025

1.

The writ petitioner impugns the reassessment action as initiated by the respondents and seeks quashing of the notice dated 31 March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19611 as well as the subsequent notice referable to Section 148A(b) dated 21 March 2022 and which was followed by an order referable to Section 148A(d) dated 04 April 2022 and the consequential notice issued on 04 April 2022 under Section 148 for Assessment Year2 2015-16. 2. Before us, the reassessment action was assailed by Mr. Lalchandani on the ground that the original notice of 31 March 2021 was framed in the name of an assessee who had already passed away on the date of its issuance. This submission was made in light of the 1 Act 2 AY 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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:47:00

notice dated 31 March 2021 having been drawn in the name of the late Angoori Devi Gupta. According to Mr. Lalchandani, despite the respondents having been duly apprised of the demise of late Angoori Devi Gupta, they chose to issue the notice under Section 148 in her name. In view of the above and coupled with the fact that the aforesaid notice, as is ex facie evident, was accorded approval by Range-52, Delhi and which would be a Joint Commissioner, Mr. Lalchandani would contend that the notice is liable to be quashed both on the ground of it having been framed in the name of a deceased assessee as well as a failure to be in accord with the requirements placed by Section 151 of the Act.

3.

However, we find from the record that upon the fact of the original assessee having passed away coming to light, the respondents undertook a course correction and issued a fresh notice on 21 March 2022 referable to Section 148A(b). It becomes relevant to note that this particular notice was addressed to the late Angoori Devi Gupta “Through legal heir and Son Sh. S.K Gupta”. This notice was also duly approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and thus compliant with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act.

4.

We consequently find ourselves unable to construe or read the notice of 21 March 2022 as being in continuation of the original Section 148 notice, as was sought to be canvassed by Mr. Lalchandani, since and as per their own submission that notice was non est having been framed and drawn in the name of a deceased assessee.

5.

In view of the aforesaid and since these were the only grounds pressed before us, we find no merit in the challenge which stands raised. 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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:47:00

6.

The writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 27, 2025/RW

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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:47:00

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →