Sri Vishwavallabha Theertha Swamiji, Sode Matha V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, And TPS and The Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

WP/29135/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Vishwavallabha Theertha Swamiji, the executor of the late Shri Laxmivara Theertha Swameji of Shiroor Mutt, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the assessment order and demand notice for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were improperly initiated against him instead of the Shiroor Mutt, and that he was neither the executor nor administrator of the Shiroor Mutt. The respondents argued that the proceedings were valid. The court found that the proceedings were not properly directed against the petitioner and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822287 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP; M TIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: PARTHASARATHI; JINITA CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Administrator; Assessment Order; Executor; Income Tax; Legal heir; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 156; 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51784 WP No. 29135 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29135 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SRI VISHWAVALLABHA THEERTHA SWAMIJI, SODE MATHA, TREATED AS EXECUTOR OF LATE SHRI LAXMIVARA THERTH SWAMEJI OF SHIROOR MUTT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SON OF SRI SRINIVASA TANTHRI CAR STREET, UDUPI – 576 101. PAN NO. FIPP53260A, PHONE NO. 94488 05555 EMAIL ID: [e-mail] …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARTHASARATHI S., ADVOCATE A/W SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MALPE ROAD, ADI UDUPI, AMBALPADY, UDUPI – 576 103. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) NORTH BLOCK, DELHI – 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP AND M. TIRUMALESH, ADVOCATES) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.28.12.2018 Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51784 WP No. 29135 of 2025 PASSED UNDER SEC 143(3) RWS 147 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 156 OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2013-14 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the assessment order dt.28.12.2018 passed under sec. 143(3) rws 147 of the Act along with the demand notice issued under sec. 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 by the First Respondent (Annexure – ‘C’); b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the CIT(A) order dt.08.07.2025 in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/ 1078306772(1) passed under sec. 250 of the Act by the Second Respondent for the assessment year 2013-14 (Annexure – ‘D’) c) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or a direction in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, restraining the First Respondent from proceeding further in the matter of recovery of demand in pursuance of the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act along with the demand notice dt.28.12.2018 Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51784 WP No. 29135 of 2025 for the AY: 2013-14 along with the demand notice (Annexure – ‘C’); d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to ascertain the legal heir of the deceased assessee and to make appropriate assessment on him in respect of his individual income after issuing the appropriate notices in accordance with law; e) pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble court deems fit, and f) direct the Respondents to award the costs of this Writ petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original assessee, Sri. Laxmivara Theertha Swamiji of Shiroor Mutt, Udupi, having expired on 19.07.2018, respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short “the I.T. Act”), posting matter for hearing on 24.12.2018. It is contended that though the petitioner, who is Matadhipathi of Sodhe Mutt, was neither executor nor administrator of Shirur Mutt and the Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51784 WP No. 29135 of 2025 proceedings would necessarily would have to be initiated against the aforesaid Shirur Mutt, of which Sri. Laxmivara Theertha Swamiji was Matadhipathi. Thereafter, respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 followed by demand notice, etc. It is submitted that though the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same came to be dismissed and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the entire proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated on the basis of the alleged letter dated 12.12.2018 said to have been received by the respondents from the Manager of Shirur Mutt, of which Sri. Laxmivara Theertha Swamiji was the Matadhipathi, in which it is specifically stated that subsequent to his demise on 19.07.2018, the Sode Mutt was only in-charge of Shirur Mutt and do not interfere with money matters. So also, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear on Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51784 WP No. 29135 of 2025 24.12.2018 on the basis of the opinion rendered by the learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue. It is the matter on record and undisputed fact that he did not submit any response to the notice nor contested the proceedings and there are no findings by respondent No.1 and 2 to the effect that the petitioner was either an administrator or executor of the estate of the aforesaid assessee, Sri. Laxmivara Theertha Swamiji, so as to enable the respondents to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. 6. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh, in accordance with law, by issuing certain directions. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-C dated 28.12.2018 and the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 08.07.2025 are hereby set aside. Printed from counselvise.com - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51784 WP No. 29135 of 2025 (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 on 28.01.2026 without awaiting further notice. (v) The respondents shall adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the petitioner is the Swamiji or Administrator or executor of Sri. Laxmivara Theertha Swamiji, Matadhipathi of Shirur Mutt and proceed further, in accordance with law. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient opportunity, hear the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0 Printed from counselvise.com "