DAVINDER SINGH THAPAR L/H AMRIT SINGH THAPAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9498/2022HC DelhiDLHC01023517202213 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present case is squarely covered by its previous judgments in Savita Kapila and Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara. These judgments established that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued against a dead person is null and void. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and notices are not legally sustainable. The Court noted that the Supreme Court's order in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal, relied upon by the revenue, did not deal with the specific issue of notices being issued to deceased assessees. Therefore, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The court also stated that the respondents are at liberty to take such steps as permitted by law, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any future steps, they can pursue their remedies accordingly. The issue of whether the revenue could take further steps was expressly left open for future action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, son of the deceased assessee Late Mr. Amrit Singh Thapar, assails notices dated 26.05.2022, 25.11.2021, and 06.04.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee expired on 02.08.2020. The petitioner's mother had informed the revenue of the demise and provided the death certificate. Despite this, the revenue issued the impugned notices, including one under Section 148A(b) dated 26.05.2022, pursuant to a Supreme Court order. The petitioner's primary grievance is that these notices are invalid as they were issued against a dead person.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a deceased assessee are null and void? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argues that Section 148 mandates service of notice on the assessee, which is impossible if the assessee is deceased. They rely on Division Bench judgments of the Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila v. Assistant CIT and Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara L/H late Sh. Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-22, New Delhi, holding that notices against a dead person are null and void. They also cite a recent order in Sangeeta Vig L/H Late Sh. Sunil Vig v. ITO, Ward 28(5), Delhi, which set aside consequential proceedings. Revenue's contentions: The revenue submitted that the notices were issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's order in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal. However, when questioned, they conceded that the judgment did not address the issue of notices being issued to deceased assessees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 9498/2022 Page 1 of 4

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 13th June, 2022 + W.P.(C) 9498/2022 & C.M. No. 28355/2022

DAVINDER SINGH THAPAR L/H AMRIT SINGH THAPAR

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Akshit Mago, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zehra Khan, Junior Standing Counsel for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for R-2. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J (ORAL) 1. By way of the present writ petition, Petitioner assails the impugned notices dated 26.05.2022, 25.11.2021 and 06.04.2021, in relation to assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), issued by Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner herein is the son of Late Mr. Amrit Singh Thapar, the deceased assessee, who expired on 02.08.2020. It is the case of the Petitioner that impugned notice dated 06.04.2021 was issued by Respondent No.1 stating therein that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and 30 days were granted to file a return in the prescribed form. Soon thereafter vide an email dated 30.04.2021, Petitioner’s mother, i.e., the wife This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002326

W.P.(C) 9498/2022 Page 2 of 4

of the deceased assessee informed Respondent No.1 of the demise of her husband and also sent the Death Certificate. Despite the said intimation the impugned notices were sent by Respondent No.1 including the last one dated 26.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022. 3. The primordial grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned notices are invalid in the eyes of law having been issued against a dead person. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the statutory requirement of Section 148 of the Act is that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, which in the present case was not served as the assessee expired on 02.08.2020, prior to the issuance of the first notice. 4. It is further submitted that Division Benches of this Court in Savita Kapila v. Assistant CIT, (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) and Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara L/H late Sh. Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-22, New Delhi and Anr. in WP(C) 2678/2020, have held that a notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person is null and void and hence, all consequential proceedings/orders including the Assessment Order and subsequent notices are not legally sustainable. Learned counsel also relies on a recent order dated 27.05.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sangeeta Vig L/H Late Sh. Sunil Vig v. ITO, Ward 28(5), Delhi in WP(C) 8276/2022, wherein relying on the aforesaid two judgments the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice under Section 148 have been set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, per contra submits that the notices have been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002326

W.P.(C) 9498/2022 Page 3 of 4

No. 3005/2022. However, on a pointed query by the Court as to whether the judgment deals with the issue if notices can be issued in cases where the assesses have expired, the answer was in the negative. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that the present case is covered on all four corners by the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court as aforementioned. For a ready reference relevant paras from the judgment in Sangeeta Vig (supra) are extracted hereunder:- “This Court is of the view that the issue in the present case is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Savita Kapila vs. Assistant CIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) which was followed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2678/2020 Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara L/H late Sh. Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta vs. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-22, New Delhi and Anr., wherein the notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person was held to be null and void and all consequential proceedings/orders, including the assessment order and subsequent notices were set aside.

Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th March, 2022 are set aside. If the law permits the Respondent/Revenue to take further steps in the matter, it shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state that if and when such steps are taken and if the petitioner has a grievance, she shall be at liberty to take her remedies in accordance with law.”

7.

Accordingly, the impugned notices are hereby quashed and set aside. Needless to state that it is open to the Respondents to take such steps as may be permitted in law and if and when such steps are taken, with which the Petitioner is aggrieved, it would be open to the Petitioner to resort to the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002326

W.P.(C) 9498/2022 Page 4 of 4

remedies in accordance with law. 8. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. Pending application stands disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J (VACATION JUDGE)

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 13, 2022/sn

This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002326

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →