In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court directed to issue a replacement notice to legal representatives of the deceased person and proceed with the matter.
In this case, the petitioner, Geeta, who is a widow, had approached the Bombay HC through a writ petition and challenged the show cause notice issued under Section 148-A (b) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the re-opening of assessment for the assessment year
2020-2021 by the income tax officer 2020-2021 and the consequential order on 16.03.2024 passed under Section 148-A (d) and the notice on 16.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Join Our In-Depth Webinar: Clause-by-Clause Analysis of Audit Forms!, Click here
The issue raised by the petitioner is that the entire process is vitiated as the first notice that has been issued for the re-opening has been sent in the name of her deceased husband, who died as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2021.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) can issue certain instructions under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act by way of
instructions for ensuring the effective administration of the department.
Join Our In-Depth Webinar: Clause-by-Clause Analysis of Audit Forms!, Click here
The bench observed that “the CBDT has the scope of issuing instructions under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act for ensuring effective and proper administration, we would advise the CBDT, if there is no other legal impediment, to issuing appropriate instructions to the concerned departments to recall or withdraw such a notice, once it is brought to the knowledge of the Authority that the addressee has passed away.“
The bench observed that CBDT should issue an instruction under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to recall a notice that has been issued to a deceased person.
Join Our In-Depth Webinar: Clause-by-Clause Analysis of Audit Forms!, Click here
The High Court bench, comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y.G. Khobragade, quashed the impugned notice sent on 16.03.2024 as it was issued to a dead person. The bench observed that a fresh notice would be a replacement for the impugned notice, which was accidentally sent to the dead person as the department did not who about his death, nor did the widow intimate the department regarding her husband’s death.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
