Smt. Malathi Lemilal Suvarna Vs the Income Tax Officer

SMT. MALATHI LEMILAL SUVARNA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR, ARUNA JEEVAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2-4/7, SHAKTHI SADAN, BAJAL JALIGUDDE, MANGALORE – 575 007.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), C.R. BUILDING, N.G.ROAD, ATTAWARA, MANGALURU-575 001.

¶16

ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI-110 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT DTD. 21.06.2021 DIN ITBA/AST/S/148/202122/1033595293(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (ANNX-D) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:53370 WP No. 5974 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶27

“(a) To issue an order of writ of certiorari or in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 21-06-2021 DIN ITBA/AST/S/148/2021-22/1033595293(1) for the assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure-D).

¶28

(b) To issue an order of writ of certiorari or in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing order of ex-parte assessment made for the assessment year 2016-17 on 17.04.2023 u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.1448 of the Act vide DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1052120241(1) (AnnexureF).

¶29

(c) To issue an order of writ of certiorari or in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notices issued u/s.274 r.w.s. section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 17.04.2023 in DIN:ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(c)/ 202324/1052120312(1) (Annexure-G) and notice issued u/s.271(1) (b) of the Act in DIN: ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(/202324/1052120311(1) (Annexure-H) for the assessment year 2016-17 as the same are issued on dead person.

¶30

(d) To issue such writ/writs or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem it fit in the Petitioner's case the interest of justice.”

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:53370 WP No. 5974 of 2024

¶32

3 -

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

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

¶35

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Smt. Malathi Lemilal Suvarna is the mother of Aruna Jeevan. Smt.Malathi Lemilal Suvarna died on 29.03.2020. The petitioner having filed returns before the respondents, the respondents proceeded to initiate the impugned proceedings and passed the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 17.04.2023 as against Malathi Lemilal Suvarna 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 deceased Malathi Lemilal Suvarna and are illegal, void, invalid, non est and void ab-initio in view of the following judgments of this Court and other Courts;

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:53370 WP No. 5974 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents –

¶44

revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, Malathi Lemilal Suvarna – the original assessee having expired on 29.03.2020, the impugned proceedings, orders passed as against the her 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.

¶46

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶49

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 17.04.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent and all further notices / orders are hereby set aside.

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:53370 WP No. 5974 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.

¶54

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 70

Smt. Malathi Lemilal Suvarna v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Malathi Lemilal Suvarna v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakshith Vs the State of Karnataka by

Prashant Prabudh Vs Principle Commissioner of Income TAX-3

Sri Darapaneni Brahmaiah Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sri C Ananda Kumar Vs the Executive Engineer

Ms. Velliyamma Vs Mr. B S Sunil

M/S Psmi Management India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax