2024 (12) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the parties, heard finally. 2. A short issue arises for consideration in the present proceedings, namely a challenge as mounted by the petitioner to the action as resorted by the respondents against Mrs. Meena Anil Wakade, the mother of the petitioner by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the "IT Act") dated 14 April 2022, which was preceded by a notice issued under Section 148A (b) dated 24 March 2022 and an order passed thereon under Section 148A (d) dated 14 April 2022. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned notice under Section 148 and the action prior thereto as initiated by respondent no. 1 are non-est and illegal in as much as Mrs. Meena Wakade against whom these notices were i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notices should not have been issued to her. 6. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner. We may at the outset observe that the Supreme Court has held it to be the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself (see: UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3687 of 2020, decided on 16 November 2020). This basic jurisprudential principle becomes applicable when any action of such nature was being initiated against Mrs. Meena Wakade. Once Mrs. Meena Anil Wakade was dead person, there was no ....