Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 50 1994 SLD 50 1994 PTD 457 (1993) 201 ITR 249
Delhi High Court
Civil Writ No. 849 of 1972, decision dated: 21st October, 1992
GOKAL CHAND MITTAL, C.J. AND SAT PAL, J
Anoop Sharma for Petitioner B. Gupta and R.N. Verma for
Respondent

VIJAY SARIN

VS

Income Tax OFFICER

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 143(2),159(2),251

Income-tax---Legal representative---Assessment proceedings---Death of assessee--¬Proceedings can continue against legal representatives---Assessment without notice to legal representatives---Not a nullity or invalid ---A.C.C. setting aside assessment and directing I.T.O. to make fresh assessment after making legal representatives party and issuing notice---Direction valid and legal---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.143(2), 159(2), 251. Pending assessment proceedings against him, the assessee died. The Income Tax Officer thereafter served a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the advocate the assessee and completed the assessment. On appeal by some of the legal representatives of the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that in spite of the death of the assessee, the proceedings could be continued against the legal representatives and, therefore, they were not invalid or a nullity, but that it was necessary to issue notice to them and setting aside the order of the Income Tax Officer directed him to make a fresh assessment after making the legal representatives party to the proceedings from the stage at which they stood when the assessee died. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a writ petition by a legal representative: Held, that, in view of section 159(2) of the Act relating to liabilities of the legal representatives and section 2,51 enabling the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to remand a matter to the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law, there was no scope for interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Income Tax Officer was justified in continuing the proceedings but had committed only an error of procedure in not issuing notice to the legal representatives regarding further proceedings to be continued and, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in coming to the conclusion that there was a procedural defect and not absence of jurisdiction and in remanding the matter to the Income Tax Officer for proceeding afresh from the stage at which the proceedings…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492