2019 (2) TMI 1209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t" for short) and order dated 13.11.2018 rejecting the petitioner's objection to the above notice by respondent No. 1. The impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. 3. The petitioner is the legal heir of late Mr. Balkrishna P Gupta (the original assessee) who died on 9.6.2014. This after having filed the return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 26.9.2011. 4. The petitioner's challenge to the impugned notice dated 29.3.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Act is on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. This as the same has been issued in the name of the dead person i.e the deceased assessee Mr. Balkrishna P. Gupta. The above objection to the impugned notice dated 29.3.2018 was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat it is an inadvertent mistake; and (v) The assessment order for assessment year 2013- 14 which had been passed on 30.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer in the name of the petitioner as legal heir of the deceased assessee. 6. In view of the above, the submission of the Revenue reiterating the grounds in the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 stands negatived on facts so far as grounds (b) i.e registration as legal heir and (c) i.e filing the return in the name of deceased assesee therein are concerned. It is not seriously disputed by the Revenue before us that a reopening notice issued in the name of a deceased person is null and void. This in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vikram Singh Vs. Union of India &....