THELAPPILLIL VARGHESE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1

PDF · subscribers
WP/29386/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01064430202630 September 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice dated February 11, 2026. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that the assessment proceedings were initiated against a deceased person. While the revenue argued that proceedings could be continued against legal representatives under Section 159(2)(b) of the IT Act, the Court's order quashed the existing assessment and demand notices. However, the quashing was made without prejudice to the respondents' right to commence fresh proceedings against the petitioner/other legal representatives, provided such action is permissible in law. The Court also directed that any notice sent to the address mentioned in the cause title would constitute due service. The penalty notices were not explicitly mentioned as quashed in the operative part of the order, but the prayer included them, and the overall allowance suggests they are also set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, wife of the deceased assessee, Thelapillil Varghese, is challenging proceedings initiated for assessment year 2024-25. The assessee passed away on June 21, 2024. The notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on June 23, 2025, a year after the assessee's death. The assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notices were also issued subsequently. The petitioner contends that proceedings cannot be initiated against a deceased person. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, argues that proceedings can be continued against legal representatives under Section 159(2)(b) of the IT Act. The petitioner confirmed the address provided in the cause title for any future notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether proceedings for assessment year 2024-25, initiated by issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on June 23, 2025, are valid when the assessee died on June 21, 2024? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the assessee died prior to the issuance of the notice under Section 143(2), the proceedings are invalid as they were initiated against a dead person. Revenue's Contention: The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents contended that under Section 159(2)(b) of the IT Act, it is permissible to commence proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, implying that the initiation of proceedings against the deceased himself does not necessarily invalidate them if they can be continued against the legal heirs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 159(2)(b),Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 29386 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

THELAPPILLIL VARGHESE 388/388, MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHARAJAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA- 562105 SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY DULCY VARGHESE W/O THELAPPILLIL VARGHESE R/A 388/388, MAIN ROAD, NARASIMHARAJAPURA CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562105.

DULCY VARGHESE LR OF T V VARGHESE R/AT NO. 388 NARASIMHARAJAPURA CHICKMAGALURU KARNATAKA - 577 134.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. LIKITH PATEL M K., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 C R BUILDING

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR COURT ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 134.

2.

ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110003.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-I. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 23.06.2025 IN DIN- ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2025-26/1077420039(1) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE- B, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; II. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 IN DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-26/1085900422(1) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE- J, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; III. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE HC-KAR ACT DATED 11.02.2026 IN DIN NO.ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1085901671(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-K, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; IV. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE NOTICE FOR PENALTY ISSUED THE BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN DIN-ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1085903839(1) UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 270A OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-L, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; V. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE NOTICE FOR PENALTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/ S/271AAC(1)/ 2025-26/1085903855(1) UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271AAC(1) OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026, ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-M, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024- 25; VI. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, TO RECALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2025- 26/1085900422(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE- J, THE NOTICE FOR PENALTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DIN- ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1085903839(1) UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 270A OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-L, THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 IN DIN NO.ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1085901671(1) ENCLOASED AS ANNEXURE-K, THE NOTICE FOR HC-KAR PENALTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2025-26/1085903855(1) UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271AAC(1) OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026, ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-M, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; VII. DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PROHIBITING AND RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS, BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SUBORDINATES, SERVANTS AND AGENTS, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 IN DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/144/2025- 26/1085900422(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE- J, THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 IN DIN NO.ITBA/AST/S/156/2025- 26/1085901671(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-K, THE NOTICE FOR PENALTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DIN-ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025- 26/1085903839(1) UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 270A OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-L, THE NOTICE FOR PENALTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2025-26/ 1085903855(1) UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271AAC(1) OF THE ACT DATED 11.02.2026, ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-M, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who is the wife of Sri Thelapillil Varghese [the Assessee], is aggrieved by the proceedings which relate to the assessment year 2024-25 because the proceedings are begun against a dead person. Sri Likith Patel M.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a copy of the Death Certificate [Annexure-A] issued by the authorities, submits that the Assessee has died on 21.06.2024 and the notice for commencement of the proceedings is a year later with the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’] on 23.06.2025 [Annexure-B].

Sri M. Thirumalesh, a learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, cannot dispute that the proceedings have been commenced against a dead HC-KAR Assessee but the learned senior standing counsel asserts that given the provisions of Section 159(2)(b) of the IT Act, it would still be open to the authorities to commence proceedings against the petitioner/other legal representatives of the Assessee.

Sri M. Thirumalesh also submits that this Court may verify from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the address as furnished in the cause title would be the correct address for the purposes of any notice that could be issued by the authorities. In response, Sri Likith Patel M.K. submits that this indeed would be the address for due service if there is to be any proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER A. The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Assessment Order and the Demand Notice both dated 11.02.2026 [Annexures - J and K] but without prejudice HC-KAR to the respondents to commence proceedings against the petitioner/other legal representatives of the Assessee so long as it is permissible in law observing that any notice addressed or sent to the address as mentioned in the cause title in this order should constitute due service.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →