Case Law Details
J. Kishorekumar Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.03.2021 on the ground that notice has been issued in the name of his father, who died on 17.10.2014.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the assessment year 2013-2014, the petitioner had acquired into a similar proceedings unaware of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai Vs M.Hemanathan, (2016) 68 taxmann.com 22 (Madras). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the impugned notice was issued, the petitioner has written several letters informing the respondent that impugned notice was without jurisdiction and was liable to be recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the same, the respondent has proceeded to issue a show cause notice, dated 16.03.2022, which is contrary to law. The learned counsel for the respondent interjects and submits that for the assessment year 2013-2014, the petitioner participated in the proceedings and accepted the tax demand and therefore it is not open for the petitioner to take a different stand for the assessment year 2015-2016. That apart, it is submitted that though the impugned notice, dated 29.03.2021 was in the name of deceased assessee, namely, Jeyachandran, all subsequent communication was addressed to the petitioner as the legal representative of his deceased father.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the language of Section 159 (2) (b) also makes it clear that for the purpose of making an assessment including the assessment or re-assessment or recomputation under Section 147 and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of the Sub Section 1, any proceedings which are taken against a deceased, assessee who is survived by legal representative, proceedings may be taken against the legal representatives. It is therefore submitted that the ground on which the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and the show cause notice issued to the petitioner as the legal representatives of the deceased assessee has been challenged is misconceived. It is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
