Delhi High Court Quashed Income Tax Penalty Notice Issued On The Strength Of The Non-Existent Assessment Order

The Delhi High Court in the case Darpan Kohli Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax observed and has quashed the penalty notice which is being issued on the strength of a non-existent assessment order.
The bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia in the case observed and has stated that the department has issued the show cause notice penalty as stated under Section 271 F on the strength of an assessment order dated 09.05.2023, thus, the same was already set aside by the Division bench of the Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 31.05.2023.
In the present case, the petitioners are the legal heirs of the Kuldip Kohli, the deceased assessee. Therefore, the petitioner in the case received the aggrieved reassessment notice which being after the date of his death in the name of the deceased person or the deceased assessee. Thus, the assessment order was passed by the respondent which being against the deceased assessee on his PAN without bringing on record all his legal heirs or for transferring the proceedings to their PAN.
The Division bench of Delhi High Court in the case observed and has set aside an assessment order for an amount of Rs. 10 crores passed by the Income Tax Department, which being solely on the ground that the same was passed against only one of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee and not against all the legal heirs.
It has been contended by the M. Sufian Siddiqui, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner that what has been lost sight of is that the assessment order on the back of which the penalty notice has been issued and the same was set aside by a coordinate bench of the court via order dated 31.05.2023.
Therefore, the court directed the Assessing Officer, AO was directed to take the next steps in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the court observed and has set aside the show-cause notice dated 11.07.2023.
The counsel, M Sufian Siddiqui appeared for the Appellant.
The counsel, Sunil Agarwal represented
the respondent.