SRI MANNEMALA VENKU REDDY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/9098/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sri. Mannemala Siva Charan, the legal heir of the late Sri. Mannemala Venkureddy, against the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner sought to quash notices and an order issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were directed to the deceased father of the petitioner concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was that the notices were improperly issued in the name of a deceased person. The court found that the notices and order were indeed issued to a deceased individual, which warranted their quashing. The court then directed that the notice under Section 148A(b) be considered as issued to the petitioner, allowing him to respond accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753966 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: VANI
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Impugned notice; Legal heir; Quash
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9098 OF 2022(T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI. MANNEMALA VENKU REDDY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI. MANNEMALA SIVA CHARAN S/O SRI. MANNEMALA VENKU REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 405 SRI. LAKSHMI APRTMENT 5TH CROSS, RUSTUM BAGH AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU – 560 017. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANI.H., ADVOCATE) AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1) (1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TEH SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED: 19.03.2022 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148A OF THE ACT ANNEXED AT ANNEXUE-B IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:30.03.2022 UNDER SECTION 148A OF THE ACT ANNEXD AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE NOTICE DATED:30.03.2022 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF HTE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ANNEXED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice dated 19.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T. Act”), the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act and the impugned notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, passed by the respondent vide Annexures-B, C and D respectively. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original assessee was is father, Late Mannemala Venkureddy, who expired on 08.02.2022, prior to 19.03.2022, on which day the respondent issued the aforesaid notice under Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act in the name of a dead person in 3 relation to the Assessment Year 2015-16 and since the assessment proceedings have been initiated against the deceased father of the petitioner, the impugned notices and order deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The material on record discloses that it is an undisputed fact that the respondent issued the aforesaid notice dated 19.03.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act by showing the assessee as Sri. Mannemala Venkureddy, who expired on 08.02.2022 as can be seen from the death certificate at Annexure-A issued by the jurisdictional authority. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-C dated 30.03.2022 and the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated 30.03.2022 and direct the petitioner to submit his reply/response along with documents to the impugned notice at Annexure-B dated 19.03.2022 by treating the said notice as having been issued in favour of 4 the petitioner and pursuant to which the respondent shall proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-C and the impugned notice at Annexure-D, both dated 30.03.222 issued by the respondent are quashed. (iii) The impugned notice at Annexure-B dated 19.03.2022 which was issued to Sri. Mannemala Venkureddy, father of the petitioner is hereby treated as notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his response/reply to the aforesaid notice along with all relevant documents. (v) Pursuant to the petitioner submitting his reply/response, documents etc., the 5 respondent shall proceed further and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE Bmc "