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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/582/2025HC DelhiDLHC01001233202517 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the petitioner's objection regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the threshold stage. The AO was instructed to pass an order deciding the issue of the notice's validity. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to revive the writ petition if they were aggrieved by the AO's decision. No specific finding was made on the validity of the notice itself, nor was any amount in dispute quantified or discussed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Mittal, as the legal heir of the deceased Devender Mittal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged a notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Revenue stated that the petitioner had already filed objections before the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding this issue, and the AO was expected to decide them within ten days. The High Court directed the AO to consider the petitioner's objection at the threshold stage and pass an order on the validity of the notice.

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 jurisdictional notice, thereby vitiating the entire re-assessment proceedings? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that a Section 148 notice is a foundational jurisdictional notice, and any infirmity, such as issuing it in the name of a deceased person, would invalidate the entire re-assessment proceedings. The Revenue contended that the petitioner had already raised this issue before the Assessing Officer (AO) and that the AO was expected to decide the objections within ten days. The Revenue suggested that the petitioner's grievance might be resolved after the AO's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 582/2025

MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Shaantanu Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocates

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

17.01.2025 CM APPL. 2754/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 582/2025 & CM APPL. 2753/2025 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 30.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 4. The petitioner is the son of the deceased assessee in whose name the impugned notice has been issued. Apart from raising various other 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 23:03:53

contentions on the merits of the decision to reopen the assessment, the petitioner submits that the said notice is liable to be set aside on the ground it has been issued in the name of a deceased person. There is no cavil that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundational jurisdictional notice and therefore any infirmity that vitiates the said notice could vitiate the entire re-assessment proceedings. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the petitioner has already filed objections before the Assessing Officer (AO) raising the said issue. And, it is expected that the AO will decide the same within a period of ten days. He submits that the petitioner’s grievance may not survive after the decision. 6. In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing the AO to consider the petitioner’s objection as noted above at the threshold stage and pass an order deciding the issue as to the validity of the impugned notice. 7. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the AO, the petitioner is granted liberty to revive the present petition. 8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 17, 2025 Ms/vc

Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 23:03:53

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →