B.C Patel, C.J:— One Sheesh Ram, the original claimant in certain land acquisition proceedings, along with Ram Swarup moved the Reference Court (Additional District Judge, Delhi) in LAC No. 134 of 1990. It transpires that during the pendency of those proceedings, Sheesh Ram died on August 3, 1986. His seven legal heirs were brought on record in the proceedings before the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who ultimately made an order on January 25, 1994; awarding compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 76,550 per bigha, solatium, along with other benefits.
2. The present petition is directed, inter alia, against the notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short “the Act”), issued by the Income-tax Department, a copy of which is produced at page 26 of the paper book. The notice is in the name of Braham Parkash, a legal heir of Sheesh Ram for the assessment year 1996-97 raising a demand of Rs. 57,75,545. Thereafter, a notice, which is also impugned, under section 221(1) of the Act was issued on June 19, 2003, a copy of which is at page 29, annexure 2.
3. It is addressed to Braham Parkash calling upon him to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed for non-payment of the dues. These notices appear to have been issued in consequence of the order dated February 25, 2002, pursuant to a notice issued under section 148 of the Act. But, we find that the notice under section 148 was issued in the name of Sheesh Ram when he was no more. In other words, it was a notice issued to a dead person. Obviously, the notice could not have been served upon the deceased. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the notice under section 148 was served on the petitioner either.
4. On behalf of the Revenue, it is submitted that section 148 of the Act mandates service of the notice on the assessee, however, in view of section 2(7) read with section 159(2)(b) of the Act, the petitioner, being a legal representative of the deceased Sheesh Ram, would be deemed to be an assessee. When we put pointed question to counsel for the Revenue whether any notice under section 148 was served on the deemed assessee or not, nothing was placed before us to show that any notice was served even on the deemed assessee. As such, it is clear that notice under section 148 was neither served on the original assessee nor on the deemed assessee. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings are bad in law as there is breach of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions contained in section 148. The principle of audi alteram partem ought to have been followed by the Revenue. On this ground, we quash the notice of demand, the notice dated June 19, 2003 as also the order of assessment dated March 17, 2003, and the order of penalty. In other words, all proceedings, notices, orders pursuant to the said notice under section 148 are quashed and set aside. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No orders as to costs.
Comments