Revision u/s 263 in the name of dead person illegal. SC dismisses SLP of Income Tax Department

Revision u/s 263 in the name of dead person illegal. Supreme Court dismisses SLP of Income Tax Department

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3825 (2023) (12) SC

In a recent judgment/order, Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Hon’ble High Court holding revision u/s 263 in the name of dead person illegal.

In the instant case, the wife of the assessee had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court praying for quashing of the show cause notice issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the name of her late husband i.e. by the time the said notice was issued, he had already expired.

She placed on record the certificate of the death, issued by the Municipal Corporation showing the date of death which was almost two months prior to the issue of the notice.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that despite the intimation of the death of the assessee, not only the notice proceeded with but subsequently, the revisionary order was also passed in the name of the dead assessee.

The Hon’ble High Court stated that it has no hesitation to hold that the entire revisionary assessment proceedings stood vitiated.

Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned show cause notice and the consequent Revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and all actions and orders consequent thereto.

Not satisfied with the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Department challenged it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a special leave petition (SLP) after passage of more than a year.

However, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the matter and found no merit in the case.

Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT
• FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied
• Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company
• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA