Ashwin Champraj Shroff v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 15 1 1

ppn 1 11.wp-27.25.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.03.04 16:02:33 +0530 PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR WRIT PETITION NO.27 OF 2025 Ashwin Champraj Shroff ..

Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Circle 15 (1) (1), Mumbai ..

Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Jeet Kamdar a/w Mr. Ruturaj H. Gurjar for the petitioner. Adyasha Das i/by Ms. Sushma Nagaraj for the respondent. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATE : 4 March 2025 P.C. (Per M.S. Sonak, J.) :- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3.

By instituting this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned show cause notices dated 24 May 2022, 2 July 2022 and impugned order dated 29 July 2022 followed by the impugned notice dated 29 July 2022 issued by the respondent.

4.

The principal ground of challenge is that the above notices followed by the impugned order were addressed to the petitioner's wife who expired on 29 April 2019. The petitioner has pleaded and also produced evidence in support of such pleadings that this fact was communicated to the Income Tax Department on 12 May 2021 (Exhibit 'G' at page 83 and Exhibit 'H' at page 84). The petitioner, by his communication dated 12 May 2021, wrote to the Income Tax Authorities about demise of his wife and about his being the representative assessee.

ppn 2 11.wp-27.25.docx All this is not disputed by the respondent.

5.

Thus it is apparent that the notices and the impugned order in this case were addressed to the petitioner's wife long after she was no more and the fact of her demise was duly communicated to the Department. The notices and the impugned order based thereon, in such circumstances, would be nullities incapable of producing any legal effect. 6.

In Devendra vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax1, Gourang Anil Wakade Vs. Income-tax Officer2 and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax3, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have held that issuing notices in the name of the dead person, despite knowledge about the demise rendered such notices and the action based upon such notices null and void. Therefore, by following the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Benches in these matters, we quash and set aside the impugned notices and the impugned order. 7.

Since we are allowing this petition on the above limited ground, there is no necessity to examine other grounds raised in this petition. All parties' contentions qua such other grounds are left open to be considered in an appropriate case.

8.

We make it clear that quashing the impugned notices and order would not preclude the respondent from initiating reassessment proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with law. 9.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. 10.

Petition is disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) (2023) 153 taxmann.com 520 (Bombay) (2024) 169 taxmann.com 731 (Bombay) (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay)