Delhi High Court
R.C. Jain Through Lr vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 6 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004) 190 CTR Del 34, 2005 273 ITR 384 Delhi
Bench: B Patel, B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents not only in transferring the case from Delhi to Calcutta but also in making an assessment order in breach of principles' of natural justice as well as in breach of provisions contained in the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The residential premises of one Romesh Chand Jain at 7-A, Rajpur Road, Delhi, was searched in pursuance to a search warrant issued by the competent authority on or about 12th Feb., 2001. Mr. R..C. Jain expired on 27th Nov., 2001. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on or about 6th-7th Feb., 2002, addressed to Shri R.C. Jain (since deceased) by the learned CIT, Delhi, inter alia, calling upon him to show cause as to why the case should not be transferred to Calcutta. The date was fixed on 15th Feb., 2002 and the notice was given without assigning any reason for transfer of the case.
3. The petitioner pointed out on that date that Shri R.C. Jain had expired on 27th Nov., 2001 and the respondents were informed about the said fact not only by an application in writing but by submitting a death certificate issued by the competent authority in that behalf. However, no action was taken by the respondents on the strength of the reply given by the present petitioner. No notice was issued in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased for transferring the case and no opportunity was given as required under the Act for transferring the case.
4. After about a period of one year on or about 10th Feb., 2003, notices under Section 158BC and Section 142 of the Act were sent by the respondents which were received on 17th Feb., 2003 by the petitioner though they were again addressed to the deceased Shri R.C, Jain. A period of 16 days was given for filing of the return for the block period from the date of receipt of the notice
under Section 158BC of the Act and the period was to expire on 5th March, 2003. It may be noted that the said period ended after the limitation period for completion of assessment.
5. It is required to be noted that it was known to the respondents that Shri R.C. Jain had expired in the month of November, 2001, and yet no proper action was
taken and proceedings were commenced against a dead person. On the basis
of this, the assessment order came to be made on 28th Feb., 2003 under Section 158BC and Section 142 of the Act. It may be noted that this was also made without
awaiting for the period given to the assessed for filing the return. In view of
this, as the principles of natural justice are grossly violated as well the
provisions contained in the Act having been violated, there is no option but to
quash the assessment order. It would be open for the Revenue to proceed in
accordance with law.
6. There is another aspect of the matter. The facts speak a lot about the
negligence on the part of the CIT (Delhi) who is represented before us. No
explanation is rendered whatsoever for not taking appropriate action after the
respondents were informed about the death of the person concerned. No
explanation is rendered whatsoever as to how the proceedings commenced
against the dead person. Therefore, the CIT (Delhi) is directed to render the
explanation in this behalf, The explanation to be rendered within a period of 15
days.
For compliance, list the matter on 4th May, 2004.
