Sri. Kannan Narasimhachari V. The Income Tax Officer Ward -1 (2) (1) and The Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1) (3)

WP/6531/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by the legal heir of Manjula Kannan, challenging several orders issued by the Income Tax Department post her death. The primary legal issue was the validity of notices and subsequent orders issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a deceased person. The petitioner argued that the issuance of notices to a deceased individual rendered all subsequent proceedings non est (invalid). The court referenced several precedents, including a Bombay High Court decision, to support the principle that notices issued to a deceased person are fundamentally flawed and non-curable under Section 292B of the Act when they constitute a substantive illegality.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805426 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai - (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR; KASHINATH KALMATH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Legal heir; Notice to deceased; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c); 271(1)(b); 148A(b); 148A(d); 271 F

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19109 WP No. 6531 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6531 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. MANJULA KANNAN (SINCE DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SRI. KANNAN NARASIMHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O NARASIMHACHARI, RESIDING AT NO.204, 2ND STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BEHIND BDA COMPLEX, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (2) (1), KORAMANGALA BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1) (3) KORAMANGALA Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19109 WP No. 6531 of 2024 BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, JR. STANDING COUNSEL) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER MADE U/S 148A(d) OF THE ACT DTD 30.03.2022 IN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042042546(1) (ANNEXURE-D) AS THE ORDER IS PASSED ON THE DEAD PERSON AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE DTD 20.03.2022 U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-C) ON A DEAD PERSON AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexure-F; order passed under Section 271-F of the Act dated 20.09.2023 at Annexure-G; order dated 20.09.2023 passed under Section 271(1(b) of the Act at Annexure-J, as well as the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 20.09.2023 at Annexure-K. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19109 WP No. 6531 of 2024 2. It is submitted that Smt. Manjula Kannan is the wife Sri. Kannan Narasimhachari. Smt. Manjula Kannan died on 17.07.2019. Copy of the death certificate of Smt. Manjula Kannan is enclosed at Annexure-B. 3. It is submitted that notice under Section 148(A)(b) of the Act was issued on 20.03.2022 at Annexure-C. Perusal of the said notice would indicate that it is issued to Manjula Kannan, who admittedly has died on 17.07.2019. It is the position in law that where notice is issued to a dead person, proceedings are non est. The petitioner has relied on the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.No.10163/2022 in support of such contention. 4. Paragraph No.10 of W.P.No.10163/2022 is extracted below: \"The facts are not in dispute. The impugned notice for reopening the assessment was issued on a dead person. There are several judgments of different High Courts holding that the notice issued on a dead person or reopening of - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19109 WP No. 6531 of 2024 assessment of a dead person is null and void in law and the requirement of issuing a notice to a correct person is not merely a procedural requirement but a condition precendent for a notice to be valid in law. A reference in this respect can be made to a decision of this Court in Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai - (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay). In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) the Apex Court has held that the notice issued and the order passed in the name of an old entity is bad in law and that such error was not curable u/s 292B of the Act as the same constitutes a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation.\" 5. In light of the admitted facts and if the notice under Section 148(A)(b) of the Act, is defective on the ground that the assessee was dead earlier to it, all subsequent proceedings would also stand abated. 6. Accordingly on such sole ground, ex-parte assessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed under Section - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19109 WP No. 6531 of 2024 147 read with Section 144 of the Act at Annexure-F; order passed under Section 271-F of the Act dated 20.09.2023 at Annexure-G; order dated 20.09.2023 passed under Section 271(1(b) of the Act at Annexure-J, as well as the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 20.09.2023 at Annexure-K, are set aside. 7. Needless to state that insofar as the right of the Revenue to proceed in further proceedings as regards the due of Manjula Kannan, as against her legal representatives as per law is reserved. All contentions are kept open. 8. In light of the above, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "