TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Annuls Tax Notice and Order for Deceased Individual Due to Invalid Issuance and Approval Errors by Officials.</h1> <h3>Rahul Rajendra Adhikari Versus Income Tax Officer, Panvel & Ors.</h3> Rahul Rajendra Adhikari Versus Income Tax Officer, Panvel & Ors. - TMI Issues involved:The validity of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice under Section 148 of the Act due to the deceased status of the assessee and lack of application of mind in granting approval under Section 151 of the Act.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act:The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act to a deceased person, along with the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and another notice under Section 148 of the Act. The primary contention was that the notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it was issued to a deceased individual. The petitioner had applied to be registered as the legal heir of the deceased assessee, which was accepted and verifiable from the Income Tax Portal. The court found that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued without the mandated enquiry, rendering it invalid and supporting this view with a precedent judgment.Issue 2: Lack of application of mind in granting approval under Section 151 of the Act:The court also considered the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act, highlighting the total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and other tax officials involved. The approval form indicated errors, such as the time limit for proceedings and the quantum of income, which should have been corrected before granting approval. It was concluded that if the officials had reviewed the approval form properly, they would have realized the errors and not recommended or granted approval. Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside due to the lack of application of mind in the approval process.Conclusion:In conclusion, the court quashed and set aside the order dated 18th April 2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequent notice dated 18th April 2023 under Section 148 of the Act based on the invalidity of the notice under Section 148A(b) and the lack of application of mind in granting approval under Section 151 of the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
