N. BINOJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Late Sri.Naringaparambil Bhaskaran, who died on 30.10.2021, was an assessee under the provisions of the Act. Show cause notice, Ext.P2, dated 27.3.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Act was served in the name of late Sri.Naringaparambil Bhaskaran on his address, with respect to the assessment year 2019-2020. The first petitioner informed the assessing officer about the death of his father, Sri.Naringaparambil Bhaskaran. It appears that the first petitioner had filed reply to the said show cause notice being the legal heir of late Sri.Naringaparambil Bhaskaran. However, the said reply has not been placed on record before

Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, submits that the first petitioner did not only respond to the show cause notice, but he was also heard before order, Ext.P3, under Section 148A(d) was passed on 10.4.2023, and thereafter notice, Ext.P4, under Section 148 was issued. The petitioners have approached this Court as a legal strategy to knock out the proceedings on the ground of limitation. They were aware of the order under Section 148A(d) as well as notice under Section 148 and waited for a period of seven months to approach this Court for setting aside the said order and notice. Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Department, submits that this Court should not interfere with the proceedings, since the first petitioner had participated in the proceedings and he filed reply to the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) and was heard before the order, Ext.P3, under Section 148A(d) was passed on 10.4.2023. WP(C) NO. 34850 OF 2023 6

I have considered the submissions of both sides.

From the order impugned dated 10.4.2023, Ext.P3, issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it appears that the first petitioner had filed reply to the show cause notice issued in the name of his late father and was also heard. The notice under Section 148, Ext.P4, which also was of the same date, i.e. 10.4.2023, is in the names of late Sri.Naringaparambil Bhaskaran and the first petitioner, who is the son/legal heir of late Sri.Naringaparambil Bhaskaran. The petitioners cannot take a stand before this Court that since the show cause notice, Ext.P2, under Section 148A(b) was not in their names, subsequent orders and notice under Sections 148A(b) and 148, respectively, cannot be passed and issued to them. Since the first petitioner had already participated in the proceedings by not only filing reply to the show cause notice but also having been heard, this submission does not lie in the mouth of the WP(C) NO. 34850 OF 2023 7 petitioners and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. The petitioners were not only aware of the proceedings, but also had participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the said contention is rejected.

The order dated 10.4.2023, Ext.P3, passed Section 148A(d) of the Act would disclose that after considering the reply and submissions of the first petitioner, the assessing officer is of the opinion that the assessment for the year 2019-2020 is required to be reopened under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act and that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act would continue in the hands of the legal heirs of the assessee.

In view of the above, I do not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioners were granted 30 days time from the service of the notice under Section 148 of the Act to file return in the prescribed form for the assessment year 2019-2020. The said time period