Ketan Ranjit v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji
[Citation -2020-LL-0217-38]

Citation 2020-LL-0217-38
Appellant Name Ketan Ranjit
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/02/2020
Assessment Year 2012-13
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reopening of assessment • issue of notice • dead person
Bot Summary: That challenge in this petition is to the Notice dated 26.3.2019, Show Cause Notice dated 9.12.2019 and Letter dated 9.12.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the Assessment for the Year 2012 - 2013 in respect of the assessee Mrs. Bhadravati Ranjit Canji. In Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai, 1 the Division Bench of this Court upon considering several other decisions has held that issue of notice of reopening the income in the name of the of the deceased assessee and after considering the same, came to the conclusion that the notice issued in the name of the dead person for reopening of assessment is null and void. This Court has held that the issue of the Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not a merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent. Accordingly, following the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta, we quash the impugned Notice dated 26.3.2019, the Show Cause Notice dated 9.12.2019 and Letter dated 9.12.2019. We clarify that this Order/quashing will not prohibit the respondent Revenue from issuing fresh notice for reassessment in accordance with law, if, the requirements of Sections 147/148 of the IT Act, are satisfied including the requirement as to limitation.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.1101 OF 2019 Mr. Ketan Ranjit, s/o. late Mrs. Bhadravati Ranjit Canji, Indian National, married, major of age, r/o. Maganlal Sadan, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji Goa 403001. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Panaji, having his Office at Aayakar Bhawan, 1st Floor, 5 EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, having his Office at Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Respondents Mr. Gaurang D. Panandiker and Ms. Eesha Dukle, Advocates for petitioner. Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department - Respondents. 2 Coram : M. S. SONAK & SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. Date : 17th February, 2020. Oral Judgment: (Per M.S. Sonak, J.): Heard Gaurang D. Panandiker, learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department - Respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at request and consent of learned Counsel for parties. 3. That challenge in this petition is to Notice dated 26.3.2019, Show Cause Notice dated 9.12.2019 and Letter dated 9.12.2019 issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen Assessment for Year 2012 - 2013 in respect of assessee Mrs. Bhadravati Ranjit Canji. 4. record bears out that Mrs. Bhadravati Ranjit Canji expired on 3.7.2017. Therefore, it is apparent that aforesaid impugned notices/letter were issued to person who had already expired. 3 5. In Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai, 1 Division Bench of this Court upon considering several other decisions has held that issue of notice of reopening income in name of of deceased assessee and after considering same, came to conclusion that notice issued in name of dead person for reopening of assessment is null and void. This Court has held that issue of Notice under Section 148 of IT Act, is foundation for reopening of assessment. sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen assessment is that such notice should be issued in name of correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to correct person and not to dead person is not merely procedural requirement but is condition precedent. 6. Accordingly, following decision of Division Bench in case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta (supra), we quash impugned Notice dated 26.3.2019, Show Cause Notice dated 9.12.2019 and Letter dated 9.12.2019. However, we clarify that this Order/quashing will not prohibit respondent Revenue from issuing fresh notice for reassessment in accordance with law, if, requirements of Sections 147/148 of IT Act, are satisfied including requirement as to limitation. 1(2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay) 4 7. Rule in this petition is made absolute in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J. af Ketan Ranjit v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji
Report Error