VIKRANT ANTHONY JOSEPH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel for the respondent authorities appear and waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Ms.Nupur Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed to set aside assessment order dtd. 26/12/2018 passed by the Income Tax Authority, Ward-1 (2)(4) Vadodara, passed under Sec. 144 read with Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also prayed to quash the demand notice of even date, as well as order dtd. 24/3/2021 issued under Sec. 264 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) The petitioner happens to be the son of deceased Smt. Rosamma Anthony Joseph. She died on 27/5/2014. The copy of the death certificate produced on record shows the factum of death. It appears that on 27/3/2018 respondent No.1 Income Tax Officer issued notice under Sec. 148 of the Act which was addressed in the name of deceased Smt. Rosamma Anthony. Notice was thus issued after four years to the dead person. On 20/7/2018, the petitioner issued notice under Sec. 142(1) of the Act. It was stated that the petitioner communicated respondent No.1 orally and also responded to the notice on 28/7/2018. In that communication dtd. 28/7/2018 the Income Tax Authority was conveyed that the mother Rosamma has been suffering from cancer and had passed away on 27/5/2014. The copy of the death certificate was also forwarded to the authority. It was mentioned in the said communication that she was staying at Pratapganj, Vadodara and that the petitioner did not have any knowledge about the transactions and about the nominations of the bank account etc. The petitioner was also not having knowledge about the details of the account and that no documents was in the petitioner's possession.