9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 ('Act') the order dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148A(d) and the notice dated 31st March 2022 issued u/s 148 all in the name of Late Smt. Usha B. Sanghvi ('the deceased assessee') and the approval granted on 30th March 2022 by the Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 to re-open the assessment of the deceased, the Petitioner being the legal heir has filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the circumstances mentioned hereunder: FACTS: 3. The Petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased assessee who expired on 4th December 2019 at Gandhinagar. It is stated that the deceased assessee had filed her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 5th June 2018 declaring her total income of Rs.1,94,28,890/- earned from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021 intimating about the death of the deceased. On 29th January 2022, the Respondents reverted on the portal seeking (i) indemnity bond (ii) original pan card to be deleted (iii) legal heir documents and other relevant documents. Thus, the Respondents were aware of the death of the assessee Late Smt. Usha B Sanghvi. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that inspite of being aware, the Respondent No. 1 on 19th March 2022 issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act in the name of the deceased. He pointed out that though the notice was dated 19th March 2022 it could be evinced that it was signed on 26th March 2022 and the deceased assessee was asked to reply by 28th March 2022; consequently, less than seven days' time was gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... register himself as the Legal Heir. He further submitted that having accepted the Intimation order u/s 143(1) passed by the CPC the Petitioner cannot complain about the reassessment proceedings in the name of the deceased. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v Income Tax Officer (2019) 413 ITR 276. He however, fairly pointed out the averment in paragraph 20 of the reply which states as under: "20. Thus, it is respectfully and humbly stated that the AO was aware that the assessee Smt. Usha Bhupendra Sanghvi had passed away. However, since the ITBA System also is undergoing a change and is being updated, with new functionalities and modalities bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC) the Apex Court has held that the notice issued and the order passed in the name of an old entity is bad in law and that such error was not curable u/s 292B of the Act as the same constitutes a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation. 11. This Court in the case of CLSA India Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 4(1)(1) & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 2462 of 2022 whilst allowing the Petition has held that the stand of the revenue that the reassessment was justified in view of the fact that the PAN in the name of the non-existent entity had remained active does not create an exception in favour of the revenue to dilute in any manner the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
