LATE SHRI SATYA NARAIN NATHA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/13315/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a petition filed by Ms. Kusum Natha, the legal heir of the late Shri Satya Narain Natha, challenging the reassessment notice and order issued by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. The primary contention was that the reassessment proceedings were improperly initiated against a deceased individual. The court referenced similar precedents where proceedings initiated against a dead person were declared null, and granted the Department the opportunity to re-initiate the proceedings against the legal heirs, excluding the period of limitation during the pendency of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747679 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Legal Heirs of Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari Vs. Income tax Officers & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI; ADITYA KHANDELWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK; KANISHK SINGHAL; ISHITA RAWAT; ADITYA BOHRA
• Keywords: Dead person; Legal heirs; Notice; Nullity; Re-assessment
• Section: 148A; 159

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:28104-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13315/2022 Late Shri Satya Narain Natha, Through Legal Heir Ms. Kusum Natha D/o Late Shri Satya Narain Natha, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 2438, Khazanewalaon Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak Mr. Kanishk Singhal Ms. Ishita Rawat Mr. Aditya Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Mr. Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 05/07/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 17.06.2021 for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and the order dated 27.07.2022. 2. The ground for seeking quashing of re-assessment proceedings is that the reassessment proceedings were initiated against a dead person. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute that the reassessment notice was issued to a dead person. However, submits that the petition be disposed of in view of the [2024:RJ-JP:28104-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13315/2022] order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court in DBCWP No.15115/2022, by granting similar liberty. 4. The order dated 22.03.2024 is reproduced below:- “1. Heard. 2. The short issue arising for consideration in this case is whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act by issuing notices under Clause (b) therein, culminating in passing of an order under Clause (d) thereof, would be a nullity as the notices were initially issued against a dead person. 3. On this issue, learned counsel for the parties bring to the notice of this Court an order dated 27.05.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [D.B Civil Writ Petition No7896/2022] as also another order dated 27.02.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Legal Heirs of Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari Vs. Income tax Officers & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9985/2023]. 4. After going through the said orders, the legal position is no longer res integra and it can be declared that notices and proceedings against dead person would be a nullity. 5. In the case of Legal Heirs of Smt. Sneh Lata Bhandari (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has also granted liberty to the Department to re-initiate the proceedings under Section 148A(b) and Section 159 of the IT Act with specific order that the limitation period between the filing of the writ petition and till its disposal shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation period for initiating such proceedings. 6. We are of the view that if the date on which initially notices were issued, which have been successfully assailed here, were within the period of limitation, there is no reason as to why the Department should not be given that liberty to take the proceedings under the provisions [2024:RJ-JP:28104-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13315/2022] of law against the legal representatives in view of the provisions contained in Section 159 of the IT Act. 7. Therefore, granting liberty to the Department to proceed in accordance with law by re-initiating proceedings under the law, this petition is allowed.” 5. This writ petition is allowed in terms of order passed in DBCWP No.15115/2022. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /27 "