Case Law Details
Sampath Kumar Srikala Vs CIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that it is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Thus, order against the deceased assessee is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Facts- The petitioner is the mother of the original assessee by name, Bharath, who engaged in a housing and construction business. The original assessee died in a road accident on 20.10.2019, and hence, no return was filed for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. Subsequently, the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased, applied through the filing portal to act as her deceased son’s legal heir, which is pending for approval. The petitioner also made an application u/s. 119(2)(b) before the authority concerned, requesting to condone the delay in filing the return on 02.12.2021. Despite informing about the demise of her son, the respondent issued a notice dated 30.03.2024 u/s. 148A(b) on the deceased assessee, stating that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2020-¬2021.
Conclusion- It is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Contrary to the same, the respondent passed the impugned order against the deceased assessee and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is also to be noted that based on the consent given by the wife of the deceased-assessee, the petitioner filed the petition dated 02.12.2021, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income of the deceased assessee, which is pending, without any consideration by the respondent.
Held that the order and the consequential notice dated 30.03.2024 passed by the respondent are set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the petition dated 02.12.2021 filed by the petitioner u/s. 119(2)(b) and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. V. Mahalingam, learned senior standing counsel, takes notice for the respondent.
2. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. She is the mother of the original assessee by name, Bharath, who engaged in a housing and construction business. The original assessee died in a road accident on 20.10.2019, and hence, no return was filed for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. Subsequently, the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased, applied through the filing portal to act as her deceased son’s legal heir, which is pending for approval. The petitioner also made an application under Section 119(2)(b) before the authority concerned, requesting to condone the delay in filing the return on 02.12.2021. Despite informing about the demise of her son, the respondent issued a notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) on the deceased assessee, stating that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 20202021. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.19945 of 2024 to quash the same. Additionally, she preferred W.P.No.19948 of 2024 for a direction to the respondent to dispose of the application dated 02.12.2021 seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking to condone the delay in filing the return of income, the respondent passed the impugned order against the deceased assessee for reopening the assessment. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has not complied with the principles of natural justice and they acted in haste manner. It is also submitted that the wife of the deceased has given consent to the petitioner to pursue the matter and authorized her to act on her behalf.
5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent made his submission supporting the order impugned herein.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. It is an admitted fact that the original assessee died on 20.10.2019 and hence, no return was filed within the time, for the assessment year 2020-21. On 02.12.2021, the petitioner being the mother of the deceased assessee, has taken steps to file return of income of her deceased son along with condone delay petition. Without considering the same, the respondent 4/7 passed the assessment order dated 30.03.2024 under section 148A(d) and issued notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2024 for reopening the assessment proceedings for the assessment year in question and calling upon the deceased assessee to furnish a return in the prescribed form.
8.It is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Contrary to the same, the respondent passed the impugned order against the deceased assessee and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is also to be noted that based on the consent given by the wife of the deceased-assessee, the petitioner filed the petition dated 02.12.2021, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income of the deceased assessee, which is pending, without any consideration by the respondent.
9. In view of the above, the order and the consequential notice dated 30.03.2024 passed by the respondent are set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the petition dated 02.12.2021 filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Both the writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
