Bombay HC Quashes Income Tax Notice
Amjad Ahmed Shaikh vs. ITO [W.P. No. 744 of 2025]
Background of the Case
The Appellant, Amjad Ahmed Shaikh (legal heir of late Ahmed Gulamnabi Shaikh), challenged income tax proceedings initiated against his deceased father. The Income Tax Department had issued a reassessment notice under Section 148 dated 06.04.2022, an order under Section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2022, an assessment order under Sections 147, 144, and 144B dated 08.03.2024, and a demand notice under Section 156 dated 08.03.2024—all in the name of the deceased assessee, who had passed away on 13 August 2016.
Arguments by the Appellant
The appellant argued that the reassessment notice and subsequent orders were issued in the name of a deceased person, making them null and void. It was emphasized that the legal heir had duly informed the Income Tax Officer about the death in May 2018, yet the department issued notices and orders in 2022–24 without acknowledging the demise. The petitioner further asserted that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice since the legal heirs were not properly served.
The appellant relied on judicial precedents, including Devendra vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Gourang Anil Wakade vs. Income Tax Officer, and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, where courts have consistently held that notices issued to dead persons are invalid.
Respondent’s Response
The respondent, ITO defended the proceedings by stating that since the Chartered Accountant of deceased’s person was receiving communications via email, the department was unaware of the death. They relied on Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, which permits continuing proceedings against legal representatives, and argued that the petitioner, being the legal heir, was bound by the notices. The revenue authorities contended that the proceedings were valid since the legal heir could represent the deceased’s estate.
Court Findings and Decision
The Bombay High Court, ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that issuing notices and orders in the name of a deceased person despite prior intimation of death, renders them legally invalid. The Court emphasized that the department’s failure to serve notices on the legal heirs vitiated the proceedings, and the reliance on Section 159 was misplaced in this context.
The Bench quashed all impugned notices and orders, clarifying that while the department is not precluded from initiating fresh proceedings against the legal heirs in accordance with the law, the existing notices and demands were null and void.
Bombay HC Quashes Income Tax Notice
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”