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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/606/2025HC DelhiDLHC01001306202517 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 High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the petitioner's objection regarding the validity of the impugned notice at the threshold stage. The AO was instructed to pass an order deciding this specific issue. The Court held that any infirmity in the Section 148 notice could vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the present petition in the event they were aggrieved by the AO's decision. The Court did not decide the merits of the validity of the notice itself but ensured the AO would address it first. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

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 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Revenue submitted that the petitioner had already filed objections with the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding this issue, and the AO was expected to decide them within ten days. The High Court noted that a Section 148 notice is a foundational jurisdictional notice, and any infirmity could vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19, is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was issued in the name of a deceased person? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The notice is invalid as it has been issued in the name of a deceased person, which vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings as it is a foundational jurisdictional notice. Revenue's Contention: The petitioner has already filed objections before the Assessing Officer (AO) raising this issue, and the AO is expected to decide the same within ten days. The petitioner's grievance may not survive 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

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 606/2025 & CM APPL. 2811/2025 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

Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

17.01.2025 CM APPL. 2812/2025

1.

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 606/2025 & CM APPL. 2811/2025

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) 2018-19. 4. The petitioner is the son of the deceased assessee in whose name 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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:16:24

impugned notice has been issued. Apart from raising various other 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 20:16:24

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →