In Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Taxmann.com 188 (Bombay

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.1101 OF 2019 Mr. Ketan Ranjit,s/o. late Mrs. Bhadravati RanjitCanji, 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 st 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 the petitioner. Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department - Respondents. 2 Coram : M. S. SONAK & SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. th February, 2020. Date : 17 Oral Judgment: (Per M.S. Sonak, J.): Heard Gaurang D. Panandiker, the learned Counsel forthe petitioner and Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, the learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department - Respondents. 2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the requestand consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3.That challenge in this petition is to the Notice dated26.3.2019, Show Cause Notice dated 9.12.2019 and Letter dated9.12.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961seeking to reopen the Assessment for the Year 2012 - 2013 in respectof the assesseeMrs. Bhadravati Ranjit Canji. 4.The record bears out that Mrs. Bhadravati Ranjit Canjiexpired on 3.7.2017. Therefore, it is apparent that the aforesaidimpugned notices/letter were issued to the person who had alreadyexpired. 3 5.In Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai,1theDivision Bench of this Courtupon considering several otherdecisions has held that issue of notice of reopening the income in thename of the of the deceased assessee and after considering the same,came to the conclusion that the notice issued in the name of the deadperson for reopening of assessment is null and void. This Court hasheld that the issue of the Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, is afoundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non foracquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such noticeshould be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirementof issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not amerely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent. 6.Accordingly, following the decision of the DivisionBench in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta (supra), we quash theimpugned Notice dated 26.3.2019, the Show Cause Notice dated9.12.2019 and Letter dated 9.12.2019. However, we clarify that thisOrder/quashing will not prohibit the respondent Revenue fromissuing fresh notice for reassessment in accordance with law, if, therequirements of Sections 147/148 of the IT Act, are satisfiedincluding the requirement as to limitation. 1(2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay) 4 7.The Rule in this petition is made absolute in theaforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J. af*