SMT.SHEFALI CHOPRA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1)

WP/22055/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Shefali Chopra, the widow of Sri Krishan Chopra, who challenged the assessment orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department against her deceased husband for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was that the proceedings were initiated against a person who had already passed away, specifically after the death of Sri Krishan Chopra on 10.10.2016. The notices and subsequent orders were issued in 2022, well after the death, leading to the argument that these actions were legally untenable. The court acknowledged the procedural error of initiating actions against a deceased individual and thus quashed all related orders and notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751119 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ; M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR; ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Deceased; Income Tax; Legal Proceedings; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

"- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42183 WP No. 22055 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22055 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT.SHEFALI CHOPRA W/O SRI. KRISHAN CHOPRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 20TH KM, LAKSHMINARAYAN ORCHREDS, MYSORE ROAD, KUMBALGOD POST, BANGALORE-560074 ALSO AT SWAPNALOK, 28/1-28/22, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD, BANGALORE-560042. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ANNAMALAI S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. ASSESSMENT UNIT/VERIFICATION UNIT/TECHNICAL UNIT/REVIEW UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42183 WP No. 22055 of 2023 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVI RAJ., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/03/2023 PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 BY THE R1 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051376758(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1; QUASHING THE COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 27/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 BEARING DIN AND DOCUMENT NO. ITBA/AST/S/114/2022- 23/1051376865(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner is the wife of Sri Krishan Chopra who has died on 10.10.2016. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the first respondent’s Assessment order dated 27.03.2023 in DIN No. ITBA/ AST/S/147/ 2022-23 /1051376758(1) [Annexure-A1] - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42183 WP No. 22055 of 2023 and the prior notice and adjudication order as follows: • The Notice dated 14.03.2022 in DIN & Letter No. ITBA/AST/F/148A (SCN)/2021-22/1040714635(1) issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act [Annexure-B1], • The Order dated 26.03.2022 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021- 22/1041660470(1) under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act [Annexure-B2], and • The Notice dated 27.03.2022 in DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2021- 22/1041716705(1) under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-B3] The petitioner has also impugned the consequential Computation Sheets, Demand Notices and Penalty Orders. 2. Sri A. Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that all the aforesaid orders/proceedings must fail in the light of - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42183 WP No. 22055 of 2023 the indisputable fact that the proceedings are initiated against a dead person, and in support of this canvass, the learned Senior Counsel points out that the assessee has died on 10.10.2016 but the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act is addressed to the deceased on 14.03.2022; that the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued on 27.03.2022 and this is followed by further notices under Section 142(1) of the IT Act during the months of 2022; that the respondents are informed about the demise of the petitioner on 14.12.2022 as could be seen from Annexures-K and L and on this short ground, the proceedings must fail. 3. Sri A. Shankar also submits that the proceedings could not have begun on the ground that the returns have not been filed by the deceased for the assessment year inasmuch as the ITR is filed on 31.03.2018 and the income in a sum of Rs.34,28,777/- is also declared as tax. The learned - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42183 WP No. 22055 of 2023 Senior Counsel emphasizes that ITR is filed when the deceased was summoned by the Additional Director of Income Tax [Investigation], Bengaluru. Sri M. Dilip, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, is not able to dispute that the proceedings are initiated against a dead person and therefore, the proceedings must fail but he seeks liberty to the respondents to initiate action as would be permissible in law against the petitioner. 4. In the light of the undisputed circumstances, the petition must be allowed quashing the impugned order and the consequential proceedings as first mentioned above and insofar as the liberty, though the respondents would be at such liberty in law, the same must be exercised in the light of the fact that for the subsequent assessment year ITR is filed on the basis of the advise of the Additional Director of Income Tax [Investigation], - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42183 WP No. 22055 of 2023 Bengaluru when the deceased was summoned during the relevant financial year. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 [Annexure-A1] and all the consequential proceedings as per Annexures-A2 to A12 and B1 to B3 are quashed with liberty as aforesaid. SD/- JUDGE SA ct:sr "