MRS. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/28317/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01061130202514 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while not expressing an opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, noted the undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit a reply before the respondent passed the impugned orders. To provide the petitioner with another opportunity, the Court quashed the impugned assessment and penalty orders (Annexures - A, B, and C) and remitted the matter back to the respondent No.1 for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit replies and documents, which the respondent No.1 is to consider after providing a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The Court's decision is based on procedural fairness rather than a determination of the substantive issues raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Tejal Milan Parikh, is the legal representative of her deceased husband, Milan Parikh, who passed away on May 8, 2021. The respondents, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, had initiated assessment proceedings against the late Milan Parikh, resulting in ex-parte assessment orders. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in W.P.No.26161/2023, which led to the setting aside of the ex-parte assessment orders and a remand for reconsideration. Following the remand, the respondent issued notices under Section 142(1) and show cause notices, to which the petitioner did not submit replies. Consequently, ex-parte assessment and penalty orders were passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner is challenging these orders, including penalty orders under Sections 271AAC(1) and 270A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner, as the legal representative of the deceased assessee, can be held liable for the tax liabilities of her late husband, considering she did not inherit any estate, in light of Section 2(29) of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that as the wife and legal representative, she did not inherit any estate and therefore, under Section 2(29) of the IT Act, she cannot be held liable for assessment proceedings pertaining to her deceased husband. This aspect was allegedly not considered by the respondent. Revenue's contention: The respondent contended that since the petitioner failed to appear before the respondent and establish that she did not inherit any estate from her husband, the respondent was justified in passing the impugned orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142,Section 271AAC,Section 270A,Section 2(29)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40810 WP No. 28317 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28317 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MRS. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MR MILAN PARIKH R/AT NO.603, 6TH FLOOR RENAISSANCE PARK-2, 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND STAGE, SUBRAMANYANAGAR RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 055. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE

SHRADHA BUILDING SARAF COLONY

KHANAPUT ROAD TILAKWADI

BELAGAVI – 590 001.

2.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL RANGE

PANAJI, GOA – 403 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2024-25/1071893305(1) DATED 06.01.2025 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ALONG WITH THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40810 WP No. 28317 of 2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

" (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the impugned Assessment Order bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/144/2024-25/ 1071893305(1) dated 06.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 along with the consequent Demand notice issued by the Respondent No.1 at Annexure - A; and

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the Penalty Order passed u/s 271AAC (1) bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271AACC(1)/2025-26/ 1079625021(1) dated 14.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 along with the demand notice at Annexure-B.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the Penalty Order passed u/s 270A bearing DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2025-26/1079628485(1) dated 14.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 along with the consequent Demand Notice at ANNEXURE-C; and

(d) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2.

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

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40810 WP No. 28317 of 2025

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the wife of one Milan Parikh, who expired on 08.05.2021. During his lifetime, respondent initiated proceedings, which culminated in several ex-parte assessment order as against the aforesaid late Milan Parikh, husband of the petitioner, aggrieved by which petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.26161/2023 and connected matters, which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the ex-parte assessment order as against the petitioner’s husband – Milan Parikh and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.

4.

In pursuance of the aforesaid remand order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26161/2023 and connected matters, respondent once again issued notice dated 14.11.2024 to the petitioner under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, to which also petitioner did not submit any reply, on account of which, respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2024, to which also the petitioner did not submit any reply, as a result of which respondent proceeded to pass the ex-parte assessment

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40810 WP No. 28317 of 2025

order, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5.

Subsequently, the petitioner issued a reply to the penalty proceedings despite which the respondent passed the impugned penalty order dated 14.08.2025 by respondent No.1, which is also assailed in the present petition.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being the wife and legal representative of late Milan Parikh, the petitioner did not inherit any estate and as such, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 2(29) of the IT Act, petitioner could not be fastened or saddled with any liability in relation to the assessment proceeding pertaining to her deceased husband and this aspect has not been considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – department submits that since the petitioner did not appear before the respondent and establish that she did not inherit any estate from her husband – Milan Parikh, the respondent was fully justified

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40810 WP No. 28317 of 2025

in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

8.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit reply before respondent passing the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures – A, B and C and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

9.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned orders at Annexures – A, B and C

passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for

reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40810 WP No. 28317 of 2025

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner

to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered

by the 1st respondent, who shall provide sufficient and

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and

proceed further in accordance with law.

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

SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 53

More judgments on Section 142

All 279 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →