MUKESH DABAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34( 5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/8188/2025HC DelhiDLHC01037019202530 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel conceded that the issue was covered against the Revenue by the High Court's decision in Savita Kapila, Legal Heir of Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned notices and the assessment order were invalid as they were issued in the name of a deceased assessee. The Court set aside the impugned notices and the assessment order. The ratio decidendi is that proceedings initiated or continued against a deceased person without proper legal representation or substitution are void ab initio. The operative direction was to set aside the notices and the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Dabas, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices issued under Section 142(1), Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1), Section 156, and Section 274 read with Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also challenged an assessment order dated 23.03.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18. The core of the petitioner's argument was that these proceedings were continued against his deceased wife, who passed away on 05.04.2019, rendering the notices and order invalid. The Revenue was represented by its counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 142(1), Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1), Section 156, and Section 274 read with Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order dated 23.03.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act for AY 2017-18 are valid when issued in the name of a deceased assessee, who expired on 05.04.2019. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notices and assessment order are invalid and liable to be set aside as they were issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, fairly stated that the issue was covered against them by a previous decision of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 274,Section 271AAC(1),Section 156,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8188/2025

MUKESH DABAS

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Mr. Karan Singh, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34( 5), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC; Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate for Revenue.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

30.05.2025 CM APPL. 35855/2025 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 8188/2025 3. Issue notice. Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 26.11.2024 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and notices dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC(1), Section 156, and Section 274 read with Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The petitioner also impugns the assessment order dated 23.03.2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. 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 19:43:24

5.

It is the petitioner’s case that the said proceedings have been continued against his deceased wife, who expired on 05.04.2019. It is contended that the notices and order issued in the name of a deceased assessee are invalid and, therefore, are liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the question involved is covered against the Revenue in the decision of this court in Savita Kapila, Legal Heir of Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2020:DHC:2296-DB. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notices and the assessment order are set aside.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 30, 2025/sms

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 19:43:24

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →