Limitation to issue notice 148 to legal representative do not apply from the first notice issued to deceased father – Allahabad High Court
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that limitation to issue notice 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the legal representative would not apply with effect from the first notice issued in the name of his deceased father.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4578 (2025) (05) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, the assessee had filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Earlier the proceedings under Section 148A of the Act were initiated against the father of the petitioner who had already died, therefore, the same were dropped and thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 148A of the Act and thereafter, the impugned order was passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
The Hon’ble High Court rejected the contention of the Petitioner that requisite sanction under Section 148A(a) of the Act, was not taken, as the case was not referrable to clause (a) as no inquiry has been conducted rather it is referrable to clause (b) which does not envisage any such approval.
The main contention taken by the Petitioner was that the limitation would run from the initial notice issued to deceased father under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued in the name of petitioner’s father was absolutely misconceived.
It was the case of the Revenue that the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, 1961 is prescribed in Section 149 of the Act and in this case as the income chargeable to tax is admittedly more than 50 lakhs, therefore, the limitation is ten years which did not expire on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in view of the provisions of Section 159 of the Act, 1961, the petitioner being the legal heir of his father was obliged to file the Income Tax Return after his death which he did not do and therefore, the notice had been issued to him under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that the Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to satisfy as to how the limitation would apply with effect from the first notice issued in the name of his father even if he had died as that was a notice issued to a dead person and accordingly, the proceedings were dropped.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the mere fact that those proceedings were continued by the Revenue Authorities for more than a year does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner was not been able to place any such law which may help his cause.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court declined for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Petition was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- AO to give list of judgments he wish to rely in taking adverse view against assessee.
- Changes in Speed Post Tariff & new features from 01.10.2025. students to get 10 % discount
- U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Empanelment of lnternal Auditor for 2025-26 & 2026-27
- A mere error in exercise of jurisdiction would not vitiate legality or validity of proceedings
- Writ petitions not to be entertained in cases of alleged fraudulent availment of ITC
