Ashwin Champraj Shroff vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15 1 1 — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ashwin Champraj Shroff vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15 1 1 — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a): the impugned show cause notices dated 24 May 2022 and 2 July 2022, the notice dated 29 July 2022 and the impugned order dated 29 July 2022 quashed and set aside; quashing does not preclude reassessment against the legal representative; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notices dated 24 May 2022 and 2 July 2022, the order dated 29 July 2022 and the notice dated 29 July 2022, all addressed to the petitioner's wife who expired on 29 April 2019 after her demise had been communicated to the Department, are valid or are nullities incapable of producing legal effect. +1 more

Court's answer

The notices and the impugned order were addressed to the petitioner's wife long after she was no more, and the fact of her demise having been duly communicated to the Department, they are nullities incapable of producing any legal effect.

Ratio / Principle

Following the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Benches in Devendra, Gourang Anil Wakade and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta (which held that issuing notices in the name of a dead person, despite knowledge of the demise, rendered such notices and the action based thereon null and void), the Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices and the impugned order.

Key takeaways

Since the petition is allowed on the limited nullity ground, the other grounds raised in the petition are not examined and all parties' contentions qua such other grounds are left open to be considered in an appropriate case.obiter¶20
Quashing the impugned notices and order does not preclude the respondent from initiating reassessment proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with law.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 27 of 2025 - Ashwin Champraj Shroff v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai; Coram: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; P.C. per M.S. Sonak, J.; decided 4 March 2025. The petitioner challenged show cause notices dated 24 May 2022 and 2 July 2022, an order dated 29 July 2022 and a further notice dated 29 July 2022, all issued in the name of his wife, who had expired on 29 April 2019; her demise and the petitioner's status as representative assessee had been communicated to the Income Tax Department on 12 May 2021 (Exhibits G and H), a fact not disputed by the respondent. Held: notices and an order addressed to a deceased person, issued long after death and despite duly communicated knowledge of the demise, are nullities incapable of producing any legal effect. Following the reasoning of Co-ordinate Benches in Devendra v. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (2023) 153 taxmann.com 520 (Bombay); Gourang Anil Wakade v. Income-tax Officer, (2024) 169 taxmann.com 731 (Bombay); and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay), the Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices and order. Other grounds were left open. The Court clarified that quashing does not preclude reassessment proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

ppn

1 11.wp-27.25.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

Digitally signed by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.03.04 16:02:33 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.27 OF 2025

Ashwin Champraj Shroff Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Circle 15 (1) (1), Mumbai

.. Petitioner

.. Respondent

Mr. Jeet Kamdar a/w Mr. Ruturaj H. Gurjar for the petitioner. Adyasha Das i/by Ms. Sushma Nagaraj for the respondent.

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATE : 4 March 2025

P.C. (Per M.S. Sonak, J.) :-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By instituting this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned show cause notices dated 24 May 2022, 2 July 2022 and impugned order dated 29 July 2022 followed by the impugned notice dated 29 July 2022 issued by the respondent.

The principal ground of challenge is that the above notices followed by the impugned order were addressed to the petitioner’s wife who expired on 29 April 2019. The petitioner has pleaded and also produced evidence in support of such pleadings that this fact was communicated to the Income Tax Department on 12 May 2021 (Exhibit ‘G’ at page 83 and Exhibit ‘H’ at page 84). The petitioner, by his communication dated 12 May 2021, wrote to the Income Tax Authorities about demise of his wife and about his being the representative assessee.

ppn

2 11.wp-27.25.docx

All this is not disputed by the respondent.

Thus it is apparent that the notices and the impugned order in this case were addressed to the petitioner’s wife long after she was no more and the fact of her demise was duly communicated to the Department. The notices and the impugned order based thereon, in such circumstances, would be nullities incapable of producing any legal effect. 6. In Devendra vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax¹ , Gourang Anil Wakade Vs. Income-tax Officer² and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax³ , Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have held that issuing notices in the name of the dead person, despite knowledge about the demise rendered such notices and the action based upon such notices null and void. Therefore, by following the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Benches in these matters, we quash and set aside the impugned notices and the impugned order.

Since we are allowing this petition on the above limited ground, there is no necessity to examine other grounds raised in this petition. All parties’ contentions qua such other grounds are left open to be considered in an appropriate case.

We make it clear that quashing the impugned notices and order would not preclude the respondent from initiating reassessment proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition.

Petition is disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Jitendra Jain, J .)

( M. S. Sonak, J.)

1 (2023) 153 taxmann.com 520 (Bombay)

2 (2024) 169 taxmann.com 731 (Bombay)

3 (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay)