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

PDF · subscribers
WP/28456/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01061129202514 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging the contentions of both sides, chose not to express an opinion on the merits of the rival arguments. The Court noted the undisputed fact that the petitioner had not submitted a reply before the respondent passed the impugned order. To provide the petitioner with another opportunity, the Court decided to set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit replies and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider after providing a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Tejal Milan Parikh, is the legal representative of her deceased husband, Late Milan Parikh, who passed away on May 8, 2021. Previously, the revenue had passed ex-parte assessment orders against Late Milan Parikh. The petitioner had approached the High Court in W.P.No.26500/2023, which resulted in the setting aside of those ex-parte orders and a remand to the respondent for reconsideration. Following the remand, the respondent issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act on November 14, 2024, to which the petitioner did not reply. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on December 3, 2024, also without a reply from the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent passed another ex-parte assessment order dated December 31, 2024, for Assessment Year 2016-17, along with a demand notice and show cause notices under Sections 270A and 271B, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner, as the legal representative of her deceased husband, can be held liable for income tax proceedings concerning her husband's assessment, particularly when she claims not to have inherited any estate, in light of Section 2(29) of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that as the wife and legal representative of the deceased, she did not inherit any estate. Therefore, under Section 2(29) of the Income Tax Act, she cannot be saddled with any liability related to her deceased husband's assessment proceedings, and this aspect was not considered by the respondent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contends 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 order. The revenue argues that no interference is warranted by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(29),Section 142(1),Section 270A,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40811 WP No. 28456 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.28456 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 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHRADHA BUILDING, SARAF COLONY

KHANAPUT ROAD, TILAKWADI

BELAGAVI – 590 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHARADHA BUILDING, SARAF COLONY

KHANAPUT ROAD, TILAKWADI

BELAGAVI – 590 001.

3.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL RANGE

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

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/M/144/2024-25/1072452679(1) DATED 31.12.2024 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ALONG WITH THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40811 WP No. 28456 of 2025

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 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/M/144/2024- 25/1072452679(1) dated 31.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 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 impugned show cause notices issued under Section 270(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17 dated 31.12.2024 and 23.01.2025 at Annexure -B,

(c) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances 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.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the wife of one Milan Parikh, who expired on

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40811 WP No. 28456 of 2025

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.26500/2023 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.26500/2023 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 order, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40811 WP No. 28456 of 2025

5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40811 WP No. 28456 of 2025

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 Annexure – A and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

8.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure – A

passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.

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

reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

(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 her and

proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 53

More judgments on Section 2(29)

All 77 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(29) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →