Late Shobha Mehta through Legal Heir Kanhaiya Lal Mehta v. ACIT

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-09-15 · Rajasthan High Court

High CourtQuashed / set asidePUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a view to reopen the concluded re-assessment for AY 2013-14 was held invalid as the same was issued in the name of deceased assessee late Smt. Shobha Mehta. Following the decisions in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi V CIT (2009) 227 CTR 621(Raj). The plea of the department that no information of death of the assessee was given was also rejected in as much as the fact of death was already available on the record of the department and reflected in the assessment order initially passed u/s 143(3). Accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2021 as also the…

Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalRajasthan High Court

Case numberD.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6489/2022

Decision date2022-09-15

Assessment yearAY 2015-16

CoramHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

OutcomeQuashed / set aside

Sections / provisions: 148; 143(3); 147; 144

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a view to reopen the concluded re-assessment for AY 2013-14 was held invalid as the same was issued in the name of deceased assessee late Smt. Shobha Mehta. Following the decisions in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi V CIT (2009) 227 CTR 621(Raj). The plea of the department that no information of death of the assessee was given was also rejected in as much as the fact of death was already available on the record of the department and reflected in the assessment order initially passed u/s 143(3). Accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2021 as also the…
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

Late Shobha Mehta Through Legal Heir Sh. Kanhaya Lal Mehta H/o Late Shobha Mehta, Age 82 Years, R/o 98L Road, Bhopalpura, Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan India ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur, C-2, Aaykar Bhawan, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan, 302005 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya Mr. Devang Gargieya. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. Mr. G.S. Chouhan.

assessee Late Smt. Shobha Mehta through her legal heir Shri

Devang Gargieya, Advocate representing the petitioner submitted

assessee Smt. Shobha Mehta who had expired long back and this

Appellant / assessee submissions

Learned counsel Shri Mahendra Gargieya assisted by Shri

He submitted that Re-Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 was

Per contra, Shri K.K. Bissa, learned counsel representing the

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.

Operative decision and relief

the writ petition and set aside the notice dated 23.03.2021 as well

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a view to reopen the concluded re-assessment for AY 2013-14 was held invalid as the same was issued in the name of deceased assessee late Smt. Shobha Mehta. Following the decisions in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi V CIT (2009) 227 CTR 621(Raj). The plea of the department that no information of death of the assessee was given was also rejected in as much as the fact of death was already available on the record of the department and reflected in the assessment order initially passed u/s 143(3). Accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2021 as also the…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with notice issued u/s 148 of the income tax act, 1961 with a view to reopen the concluded re-assessment for ay 2013-14 was held invalid as the same was issued in the name of deceased assessee late smt. shobha mehta. following the decisions in the case of smt. kesar devi v cit (2009) 227 ctr 621(raj). the plea of the department that no information of death of the assessee was given was also rejected in as much as the fact of death was already available on the record of the department and reflected in the assessment order initially passed u/s 143(3). accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2021 as also the… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	High Court
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in Late Shobha Mehta through Legal Heir Kanhaiya Lal Mehta v. ACIT?

Which facts matter most?

What did the Rajasthan High Court decide?

the writ petition and set aside the notice dated 23.03.2021 as well

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a view to reopen the concluded re-assessment for AY 2013-14 was held invalid as the same was issued in the name of deceased assessee late Smt. Shobha Mehta. Following the decisions in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi V CIT (2009) 227 CTR 621(Raj). The plea of the department that no information of death of the assessee was given was also rejected in as much as the fact of death was already available on the record of the department and reflected in the assessment order initially passed u/s 143(3). Accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2021 as also the…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

148, 143(3), 147, 144

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a view to reopen the concluded re-assessment for AY 2013-14 was held invalid as the same was issued in the name of deceased assessee late Smt. Shobha Mehta. Following the decisions in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi V CIT (2009) 227 CTR 621(Raj). The plea of the department that no information of death of the assessee was given was also rejected in as much as the fact of death was already available on the record of the department and reflected in the assessment order initially passed u/s 143(3). Accordingly the notice issued u/s 148 dated 23.03.2021 as also the… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.