HARI SHANKAR MIMANI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/3245/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO006328202220 December 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as it was issued against a dead person. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer was aware of the death of the assessee. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice and all further proceedings, including those under Sections 147, 271(c), 271(b), and notices of demand under Section 156, that were based on the aforesaid notice. However, the Court clarified that the quashing of the notice would not prevent the Assessing Officer from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law against the legal representatives of the deceased.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hari Shankar Mimani, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued against a deceased person, who had expired on March 9, 2018. The petitioner further stated that the information of the death had been communicated to the Assessing Officer, and the request of the legal representatives was approved on October 22, 2018. Despite this, the Assessing Officer was proceeding with actions under Sections 148/147 of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2014-15 is invalid as it was issued against a deceased person, when the Assessing Officer was aware of the death and the legal representatives' status. The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 is void ab initio because it was issued against a dead person, and the Assessing Officer had prior knowledge of the death and the communication from the legal representatives. The petitioner relied on the fact that the death occurred on March 9, 2018, and the notice was issued on March 30, 2021. The revenue, represented by Mr. Vipul Kundalia, was not in a position to contradict the petitioner's submission regarding the issuance of the notice against a dead person.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 271(c),Section 271(b),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD –3 ORDER SHEET WPO/3245/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE HARI SHANKAR MIMANI VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 20th December, 2022.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jewrajka, Adv. Ms. Pooja Jewrajka Ms. Anjali Tulsian, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For the Revenue The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this matter petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15 on the ground that the same has been issued against the dead person and the noticee has expired on 9th March, 2018 and the information of death was already communicated to the Assessing Officer, request of legal representatives has been approved on 22nd October, 2018 as appearing at page 24 of the writ petition. Petitioner submits that information of death was brought to the notice to the Assessing Officer and inspite of this fact of death of the noticee, respondent Assessing Officer is proceeding with the Section 148/147 of the Act.

2 Mr. Kundalia, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents/Income Tax Authority is not in a position to contradict this fact. It appears from record that the impugned notice has been issued against the dead person. Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition being WPO 3245 of 2022 is disposed of by quashing the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2021 and all further proceedings under Section 147, 271(c ) and 271(b) and notices of demand under Section 156 of the Act on the basis of the aforesaid impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act also stand quashed. However, quashing of the impugned notice will not prevent the Assessing Officer concerned to initiate any fresh proceeding in accordance with law against the legal representatives. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →