SRI LATE P V VEERANNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/337/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01000149202529 January 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a dead person are non-est in law. Consequently, all consequential orders passed, including the assessment order under Section 144 and penalty notices/orders, are also not sustainable. The court noted that the notice dated March 12, 2018, was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement indicating the assessee's death, which was further evidenced by a letter from the Superintendent of Postal Offices. The court found that it was not disputed that the proceedings were initiated against a dead person, rendering them unsustainable. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, son and legal heir of the deceased assessee, Sri Late P.V. Veeranna, filed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 12, 2018, for assessment year 2017-18. The assessee had died on May 25, 2017. The notice was issued to the deceased assessee and returned by postal authorities with an endorsement of death, as evidenced by a letter from the Superintendent of Post Offices. The petitioner also challenged the consequential assessment order under Section 144 and penalty notices/orders issued against the deceased assessee. The respondents are various Income Tax Officers and Faceless Assessment/Appeal Centres.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 12, 2018, for assessment year 2017-18, against a deceased assessee is valid in law? 2. Whether the consequential assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalty proceedings initiated against a deceased assessee are sustainable in law? The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 142(1) was issued to a dead person, and all subsequent consequential proceedings, including the assessment order and penalty, are non-est in law and therefore not sustainable. The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not dispute the fact that the notice under Section 142(1) was issued against a dead person.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 271A,Section 271B,Section 271AAC(1),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4068 WP No. 337 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI LATE P V VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NEAR BUS STAND, ANAJI VILLAGE DAVANAGER-577512 PAN: ARDPV4816D REP. BY HIS SON AND LEGAL HEIR SRI CHANDRU P V AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O LATE P V VEERANNA NEAR BUS STAND, ANAJI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE- 577512. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V., ADV.)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 DAVANAGERE -577002.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5) DAVANAGERE -577 002.

3.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1) DAVANAGERE -577 002.

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4068 WP No. 337 of 2025

4.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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 -110003.

5.

NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NAFAC), DELHI, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- 110001. …RESPONDENTS

(SRI M DILIP, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5 -V/O DATED 15.01.2025)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, DATED 12.03.2018 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AIM/S/142(1) /2017-18/1009172843(1) ISSUED BY THE R-2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4068 WP No. 337 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, son of deceased assessee is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) dated 12.03.2018 for the assessment year 2017-18 and consequential assessment order passed under Section 144 of 1961 Act dated 06.09.2019 and all other consequential orders including penalty.

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Ravi Shankara.S.V., for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.M.Diliip for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter relates to assessment year 2017-18. It is submitted that the assessee died on 25.05.2017. The respondent-Authorities issued notice under Section 142(1) of 1961 Act dated 12.03.2018 and as the assessee had deceased by that time, the same was returned to the Income Tax Authorities in terms of

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4068 WP No. 337 of 2025

Annexure-C, letter issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices.

4.

Learned counsel would submit that the assessment order and other consequential orders including imposing penalty are against a dead person which is not sustainable. Learned counsel would submit that notice under Section 142(1)(i) of 1961 Act itself is against a dead person and all consequential proceedings initiated against a dead person is non-est in law and hence he prays for setting aside the impugned orders.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.Dilip is not in a position to dispute the fact of issuing notice under Section 142(1)(i) of 1961 Act against a dead person.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that since the proceedings initiated by issuing notice under Section

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4068 WP No. 337 of 2025

142(1)(i) of 1961 Act is against a dead person and consequential orders passed are non-est in law, as no proceedings against a dead person could be initiated. Moreover, it is noticed that Annexure-A, notice dated 12.03.2018 issued returned by Postal Authorities with an endorsement that the assessee has died, which is evidenced by Annexure-C, letter of the Superintendent of Postal Offices, Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga dated 10.08.2020 addressed to the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that the proceedings initiated by issuing notice under Section 148(1)(i) of 1961 Act is against a dead person, which is not sustainable in law. Hence, the following: ORDER

a) Writ petition is allowed.

b) Annexure-A, notice bearing No.ITBA/AIM/S/142(1)/2017-18/1009172843(1) dated 12.03.2018;

Annexure-A1, order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1017822663(1) dated

- 6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4068 WP No. 337 of 2025

06.09.2019; Annexuer-A2, notice bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/271A/2019-20/1017825339(1) dated 06.09.2019; Annexure-A3, penalty notice bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/271B/2019-20/1017825407(1) dated 06.09.2019; Annexure-A4, penalty notice bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2019-20/1017825494(1) dated 06.09.2019; Annexure-A5, penalty order bearing No.ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2021-22/1041771144(1) dated 27.03.2022; and Annexure-A6, order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059167119(1) dated 28.12.2023 are quashed.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →