Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/581/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice issued in name of deceased assessee; legal heir's writ petition; foundational jurisdictional notice; reassessment AY 2017-18; objections before Assessing Officer at threshold stage; petition disposed with liberty to revive; Income Tax Act 1961; notice dated 30.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the AO to consider the petitioner's objection at the threshold stage and pass an order deciding the validity of the impugned Section 148 notice; liberty granted to the petitioner to revive the writ petition if aggrieved by the AO's decision. Pending applications disposed of. ¶¶20

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 in the name of a deceased assessee is liable to be set aside, any infirmity in such foundational jurisdictional notice being capable of vitiating the entire re-assessment proceedings. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

Observation (stated without cavil): a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundational jurisdictional notice, and therefore any infirmity that vitiates the said notice could vitiate the entire re-assessment proceedings; however, the Court left the validity of the notice to be decided by the AO.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner's objection (that the Section 148 notice was issued in the name of a deceased person) at the threshold stage and to pass an order deciding the validity of the impugned notice.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the present writ petition if aggrieved by the decision of the AO on the objection.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vibhu Bakhru, ACJ and Tushar Rao Gedela, J) — Writ petition by the legal heir of a deceased assessee against a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 in the name of the deceased assessee. The petitioner contended the notice was liable to be set aside as having been issued in the name of a deceased person, a Section 148 notice being a foundational jurisdictional notice whose vitiation could vitiate the entire re-assessment. The Court, noting the petitioner had already raised objections before the AO which were expected to be decided within ten days, disposed of the petition by directing the AO to decide the objection at the threshold stage and pass an order on the validity of the impugned notice, with liberty to revive the petition if aggrieved.

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 581/2025 & CM APPL. 2751/2025 MANISH MITTAL AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED DEVENDER MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Advocate with Mr. Shaantanu Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI

¶6

& ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, Junior Standing Counsels

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 17.01.2025

¶11

CM APPL. 2752/2025

¶12

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 581/2025 & CM APPL. 2751/2025

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 30.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice ) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

¶16

The petitioner is the son of the deceased assessee in whose name the impugned notice has been issued. Apart from raising various other

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:47:27

¶18

contentions on the merits of the decision to reopen the assessment, the petitioner submits that the said notice is liable to be set aside on the ground it has been issued in the name of a deceased person. There is no cavil that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundational jurisdictional notice and therefore any infirmity that vitiates the said notice could vitiate the entire re-assessment proceedings.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the petitioner has already filed objections before the Assessing Officer (AO) raising the said issue. And, it is expected that the AO will decide the same within a period of ten days. He submits that the petitioner’s grievance may not survive after the decision.

¶20

In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing the AO to consider the petitioner’s objection as noted above at the threshold stage and pass an order deciding the issue as to the validity of the impugned notice.

¶21

In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the AO, the petitioner is granted liberty to revive the present petition.

¶22

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶23

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶24

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶25

JANUARY 17, 2025 Ms/vc

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:47:27

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 30, Delhi & Anr.

M/S Royal Security Services Vs Jaipal Singh and Ors.

Fci Handling Workers Union Vs UOI & Anr.

Rajesh Gomes Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

M/S Image Filling Station Vs National Highway Logistics Management Limited & Anr.

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Atul Baghel

Ethenic Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Kg Somani Erstwhile Liquidator & Ors.

Naib Sub Tej Pal Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Fci Handling Workers Union Vs UOI & Anr.

M/S Plintron India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.

Vidya Sahu Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 72-1 New Delhi

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Janta Party through Its President Vs Election Commission of India

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.