S.Santhakumari Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Order against Karta of HUF for non-compliance due to the death of the Karta and the issuance of notices to an outdated address was set aside to balance the interest of the parties and the case was remitted back to the Department to pass a fresh order on merits.
Held: Assessee challenged an income tax assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144. Assessee represented a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) who was Karta, Mr. M. Subramanian passed away on 15.01.2013. Assessee filed income tax returns for the last two months of the assessment year 2013-2014 after the death of the Karta. Department issued notices under Section 148 for reopening the assessment due to the non-filing of returns for that year. Notices were issued to an outdated email address before assessee updated the email details with the department on 01.10.2021. Assessee claimed that neither she nor her son, Mr. S. Radhakrishnan received any of the notices sent by department. Department argued that HUF did not dissolve with the death of the Karta and that it was the responsibility of the remaining coparceners to respond to the notices, family intentionally avoided receiving communications despite being aware of the tax obligations. It was held that assessee could be given one opportunity as there were several factors which had contributed to the passing of the impugned order partly, on account of the death of the Karta and thereafter due to out break of Covid – 19 pandemic. Therefore to balance the interest of the parties, Court was inclined to come to the rescue of assessee by quashing the impugned order and the case was remitted back to the Department to pass a fresh order on merits.
