Validity of notice issued U/s 148A(b) to deceased person and subsequent notices to the Legal heir

Case Details:

Supreme Court – Ghanyashyam Anil Dhanani v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai & Anr. (SLP 28039 of 2023):

Validity of initial notice:

The appellant challenged the validity of the initial notice dated May 24, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to a deceased person, Anil Pragji Dhanani. The appellant also contested the subsequent notices and orders issued to the legal representatives of the deceased.

Background:
Initial Notice: On May 24, 2022, a notice under section 148A(b) was issued in the name of Anil Pragji Dhanani, who had passed away on September 2, 2016. Ghanyashyam Anil Dhanani, the son of the deceased, responded to the notice on June 7, 2022, informing the authorities of his father’s death.

The Income Tax Department sought details of the legal representatives, and upon receiving the information, issued an order under section 148A(d) on July 30, 2022, followed by another order on July 31, 2022, in the name of the legal representatives.

High Court decision
Writ Petition: The legal representatives filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated against the deceased.
High Court ruling: The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the legal representatives to raise all contentions except the fact that the initial notice was issued to a deceased person.

Supreme Court’s Findings
Contention on Initial Notice:
The appellant argued that the proceedings were vitiated as they were initiated against a deceased person, and the subsequent participation of the legal representatives did not cure this defect.
The Supreme Court found this contention reasonable and in accordance with the law.

Reference to Rajeev Bansal Case:
The Supreme Court referred to its recent judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal, which dealt with similar issues regarding the validity of notices under section 148 and the rights of legal representatives.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside paragraph 4 of the Bombay High Court’s order, allowing the appellant to raise the contention that the initial notice was issued to a deceased person. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider all contentions raised by the appellant on their merits and in accordance with the law.
Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appellant was granted the liberty to pursue all rights and remedies in accordance with the law if aggrieved by the fresh assessment order.

The copy of the order is as under:

1733223682084