Gujarat High Court
Kalpesh Chandubhai Patel Lh Of Late ... vs Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant ... on 5 September, 2023
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav, Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19371/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19371 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
KALPESH CHANDUBHAI PATEL LH OF LATE CHANDUBHAI
CHHAGANBHAI PATEL
Versus
ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER
===============================================================
Appearance:
VIJAY H PATEL(7361) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNT RAVAL FOR MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 05/09/2023
Page 1 of 4
Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 16:04:21 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19371/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2023
undefined
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vijay H. Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2.
3. With consent of learned advocates for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. Challenge in this petition is to the Assessment Order dated 3rd August, 2021 and the demand notice dated 3rd August, 2021.
4. The facts in brief indicate that for the Assessment Year 2013-14, a notice was issued to the assessee namely Chandubhai Chhaganbhai Patel on 29th April, 2020. It is the case of the petitioner, son of the deceased- Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 16:04:21 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19371/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2023 undefined Chandubhai Chhaganbhai Patel that his father expired on 9th December, 2020. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 14 th December, 2020. Reading the petition indicates that the petitioner had informed the department well in advance by communication dated 2nd April, 2021 bringing to the notice of the department that the father of the petitioner, the assessee had died.
5. Mr.Vijay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the assessment dated 3rd August, 2021 is against a dead person and therefore, void ab-initio. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court wherein, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi versus Maruti Suzuki India Limited, this Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 16:04:21 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19371/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2023 undefined Court quashed the order only on the ground that it was passed against the dead person.
6. In the light of the decision in case of Maruti Suzuki (Supra), we quash and set aside the order and demand notice dated 3rd August, 2021. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 16:04:21 IST 2023