USMAN SAEED BUTT VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2 COM: ZONE-I; LAHORE.
2001 P T D 1647
[Lahore High Court]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
USMAN SAEED BUTT
versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME‑TAX, CIRCLE‑2 COM: ZONE‑I; LAHORE.
Writ Petition No.2519 of 2001, heard on 15/03/2001.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.56, 58 & 61‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Issuance of notices under Ss.56, 58 & 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance in the names of a dead person‑‑‑Fact that the person had died was within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer who instead of issuing notices in the names of the legal representatives issued notice to the deceased assessee through his legal representatives‑‑‑Neither the names nor the addresses of the legal representatives had. been mentioned in the notices, in question‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Assessing Officer was duty‑bound to find out the names of‑the legal representatives of the deceased and issue notices to them‑‑ Assessee having died during the year 1993, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to have issued notice in his name in the year 2001‑‑ Notices in question were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect by the High Court in circumstances.
Sahasranghsu Kanta Acharya v. Collector of Malda and others (1963) 47 ITR 754 ref.
(b) Income‑tax‑
‑‑Assessment .
‑‑‑Assessee having died, assessment could not be made against a person without naming him but describing him as successor‑in‑interest of dead person.
Sahasranghsu Kanta Acharya v. Collector of Malda and others (1963) 47 ITR 754 fol.
Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th March, 2001.
JUDGMENT
This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in which validity of notices issued by the respondent under sections 56, 58 and 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, has been challenged.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the aforesaid notices have been issued in the name of Saeed Ahmad Butt who died on 15th of June, 1993 and, as such, the notices issued in his name are without lawful authority.
3. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, stated that subsequently notices have been issued in the names of legal heirs of the deceased, copies of which have been filed.
4. There is considerable merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is axiomatic that no proceeding under any law could be taken against a dead person. The fact that Saeed Ahmad Butt had died, was within the knowledge of the respondents who instead of issuing notice in the names of his legal representatives, issued notice to Saeed A Ahmad Butt through his legal representatives. Neither the names nor the addresses of the legal representatives had been mentioned. It was the duty of! the respondents to find out the names of the legal representatives of the deceased and issue notices to them. Saeed Ahmad Butt had died on 15‑6‑1993 and there was no occasion for the respondents to, have issued notices in his name in the year 2001. In .the case of Sahasranghsu Kanta Acharya v. Collector of Malda and others (1963) 47 ITR 754) it was held o that the assessment cannot be made against a person without naming him but describing him as successor‑in‑interest of a dead person.
In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned notices are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.B.A./U‑12/L Petition accepted.