LATE. BYRASANDRA EAMARLAPPA KRISHNA MURTHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/24480/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01053350202510 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the impugned proceedings, order, and penalty notices were passed against her deceased husband, Late Byrasandra Eamarlappa Krishna Murthy, who had expired prior to the issuance of these documents. The Court relied on the judgments cited by the petitioner, including its own previous decisions and those from other High Courts, which established that assessment and penalty proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper substitution or legal representation are illegal, void, invalid, non est, and void ab initio. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated March 4, 2025, and quashed the penalty notices dated March 4, 2025. The principle established is that any action taken by the revenue against a deceased assessee without following the due legal process of substitution is a nullity.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Sumithra Rani Bangarpet Muniswamy, is the widow and legal representative of the deceased assessee, Late Byrasandra Eamarlappa Krishna Murthy, who passed away on July 18, 2023. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, initiated assessment proceedings and issued an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 4, 2025, for Assessment Year 2023-24. Additionally, penalty notices under Section 274 read with Section 270A and Section 272A(1)(d) were issued on the same date. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging these proceedings and orders, contending they were passed against her deceased husband and were therefore illegal and void.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 4, 2025, for Assessment Year 2023-24, is illegal, void, invalid, non est, and void ab initio, given that the original assessee, Late Byrasandra Eamarlappa Krishna Murthy, expired on July 18, 2023. 2. Whether the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A and Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 4, 2025, are illegal, void, invalid, non est, and void ab initio for the same reason. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings, order, and penalty notices were passed against her deceased husband. She relied on judgments from the High Court of Karnataka (Sri. Late Someshwar Rao Chilukuri vs. Income Tax Officer), the High Court of Bombay (Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai; Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle (16(2), Mumbai), and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Urmila Saxena vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes) to support her claim that such proceedings are illegal and void ab initio. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45656 WP No. 24480 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24480 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

LATE. BYRASANDRA EAMARLAPPA KRISHNA MURTHY NO.25/2, VITTALA NIVAS, LAKE ROAD, BYRASANDRA, CV RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPOUSE, SMT. SUMITHRA RANI BANGARPET MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O LATE BYRASANDRA EAMARLAPPA KRISHNA MURTHY, NO.6/4B, KRISHNAMURTHY KANASU, 5TH FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, LAKE ROAD, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, BYRASANDRA, CV RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 093. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1),

BANGALORE – 560 095.

2.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/

JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER,

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM,

DELHI – 110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45656 WP No. 24480 of 2025

OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B DATED 04/03/2025 BEARING DIN- ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1074008284(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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:- “ i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed U/s 143(3) 144B dated 04/03/2025 bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1074008284(1) passed by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2023-24 herein marked as Annexure - A. ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty notice dated: 04/03/2025 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2024- 25/1074008625(1), by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2023-24 herein marked as Annexure - A1. iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty notice dated 04/03/2025 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 272A(1) (d) of the Act bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/S/272A(1)(d)_FL/2024-25/1074007598(1) by the Respondent No.2 for assessment year 2023-24 herein marked as Annexure- A2.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45656 WP No. 24480 of 2025

iv) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents – revenue and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – Smt.Sumithra Rani Bangarpet Muniswamy is the widow of late Byrasandra Eamarlappa Krishna Murthy, who said to have expired on 18.07.2023 leaving behind the petitioner, who succeed to his estate as his heir and legal representative. The petitioner having filed returns before the respondents, the respondents proceeded to initiate the impugned proceedings and passed the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 04.03.2025 as against the petitioner’s husband late Byrasandra Eamarlappa Krishna Murthy and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that the impugned proceedings, orders, notices etc., were passed against her deceased husband are illegal, void, invalid, non est and void ab- initio in view of the following judgments of this Court and other Courts;

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45656 WP No. 24480 of 2025

(i) Sri.Late Someshwar Rao Chilukuri vs. Income Tax Officer – W.P.No.28677/2024 Dated 09.01.2025;

(ii) Mrs.Vanitha Gopal Shetty vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai – W.P.No.19840/2019 dated 05.07.2021;

(iii) Urmila Saxena vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes – (2024) 159 taxmann.com 6 (Madhya Pradesh);

(iv) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle (16(2), Mumbai – (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay).

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner’s husband – the original assessee Byrasandra Eamarlappa Krishna Murthy having expired on 18.07.2023, the impugned proceedings, orders passed as against the late husband of the petitioner are clearly illegal, void, invalid, non est and void ab- initio as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and the recent judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra.

6.

In the result, I pass the following:-

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45656 WP No. 24480 of 2025

ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 04.03.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside and penalty notices at Annexures-A1 and A2 both dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

Srl.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →