Date Of Order 02-01-2018 W.p v. The Income Tax Officer -5(2)(5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF JANUARY, 2018) BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI $WRIT PETITION No.22020/2017 (TIT) Between:| Mrs. S. SavithriW/o late Mr. T.V. Satyanarayana|Aged about 61 yearsR/at: Sreenidhi, No.1712[th]Cross, AshoknagarBSK l[St]stage, Bangalore-S60050. | ...Petitione (By Mr. Satyanand B.S. Advocate) And: The Income Tax Officer 5(2)(5)Office of the Income Tax OfficerWard — 5(2)(5), Room No.309|4[ra]Floor, BMTC ComplexKoramangala, Bangalore-560 O9od.... Respondent (Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate2 KRREK This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 &|22/7 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue aWrit of Certiorari, or any other writ or directiondeclaringthatthe|NoticebearingNo.F.No.CashDeposit/ACOPS6182M/ITO, W-5(2)(5)/17-18, dated|10.04.2017, (Annexure-A), issued by the Respondentas being illegal, unlawful, void ab initio, as such the'same has lost its significance in the eyes of law & etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary|Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the)following:- ORDER Mr. Satyanand B.S., Advocate for PetitionerMr.E.I. Sanmathi,Advocate for Respondent 1. The petitioner,|Mrs. S. Savithri, Wife of late Mr. T.V. Satyanarayana,a First Division Clerk in theCity Civil Court, Bangalore,has filed this petition inthis Court, challenging the impugned Notice issued by|the Respondent - Income Tax Officer —- 9(2)(9),Bangalore, underSection 133 (6) of the Income TaxAct, 1961(‘Act’ for short), calling upon the addressee,Mr.T.V. Sathyanarayana to explain the credit entry ofRs.95.83 lakhsin the Bank Account of the said Mr.| T.V. Sathyanarayana. 2. The petitioner, Mrs. 8S. Savithri, the wife ofMr.T.V. Sathyanarayana furnished an initial reply to| the said Notice of the Income Tax Officer, vide) Date of Order 02-01-2018 W.P.No.22020/2017 Mrs. S. Savithri Vs. The Income Tax Officer -5(2)(5) 3/8 AnnexureDOT]15/05/2017that|Mr.TV. sathyanarayana, her husband who was working as—First Division Clerk in the City Civil Court, Bangalore,had unfortunately expired on 28/08/2016even priorto the receipt of the said Notice dated10/04/2017andshe was not aware ot his Tax matters and details otBank entries. 3. The present petition has been filed in thisCourt on!18/05/2017and on-s23/05/2017, the]learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr. E.I. Sanmathi|submitted before the Court that the RespondentDepartment will not precipitate the matter further in|pursuance of the impugned Notice under Section 133.(6) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.satyanand B.S. has submitted that firstly, the Noticewas addressed to a deceased person, Mr. T.V.|sathyanarayana who had expired on28/08/2016and Date of Order 02-01-2018 W.P.No.22020/2017 Mrs. S. Savithri Vs. The Income Tax Officer -5(2)(5) 4/8 in the absence of any separate Notice issued in the|name of the petitioner wife, Smt. S. Savithri, she is not|accountableOTanswerableTO furnish the.said information as required under Section 133 (6) of the|Act. o. The provisions of Section 133 (6) of the Actquoted below empowers that the Income Tax Authority|to require any person including a banking company|etc., to furnish any information or document which willbe useful or relevant for any inquiry or proceedings|under the Act. Section 133(6): eyrequire any person, including a banking|company or any officer thereof,|to furnishinformation_ in relation to such points ormatters, orto furnish statements of accountsand affairs verified in the manner specified bythe [Assessing] Officer, the [Deputy Commissioner(Appeals}/ |, the [Joint Commissioner] or theCommissioner (Appeals)/, giving information in) 5/8 relation to such points or matters as, in theopinion of the [Assessing] Officer, the [Deputy|Commissioner|(Appeals)/[,the[JointCommissioner] or the Commissioner (Appeals)/,wil be useful for, or relevant to, any /enquiry or]proceedings under this Act: Section 133(6): eyrequire any person, including a banking|company or any officer thereof,|to furnishinformation_ in relation to such points ormatters, orto furnish statements of accountsand affairs verified in the manner specified bythe [Assessing] Officer, the [Deputy Commissioner(Appeals}/ |, the [Joint Commissioner] or theCommissioner (Appeals)/, giving information in) 5/8 relation to such points or matters as, in theopinion of the [Assessing] Officer, the [Deputy|Commissioner|(Appeals)/[,the[JointCommissioner] or the Commissioner (Appeals)/,wil be useful for, or relevant to, any /enquiry or]proceedings under this Act: |Providedthat the powers referred to in clause|(6), may also be exercised by the /PrincipalDurectorGeneralor]Director-General,the/PrincipalChief.Commissioner|or]Chief|Commissioner, the [Principal Director or] theDurectorforthe.PrincipalCommissionerOTCommissioner or the Joint Director or DeputyDirector or Assistant Director]:]| |Provided further' that the power in respect ofan inquiry, in a case where no proceeding is|pending, shall not be exercised by any income-tax authority below the rank of [Principal Directoror]DirectorOT|{PrincipalCommissioneror]Commissioner |, other than the Joint Director orDeputy Director or Assistant Director,/ without theprior approval of the /Principal Director or||Director or, as the case may be, the [PrincipalCommissioner or] Commissioner: 6/8 |Provided also' that for the purposes of anagreement referred to in section 90 or section|9OA,an income-tax authority notified under|sub-section (2) of section 131 may exerciseall the powers conferred under this section,|notwithstanding that no proceedings arepending before it or any other income-tax|authority.|” 6. The other contention raised before the Court is |that the only Authority having a particular designation|as contained in the second Proviso can call for such|information. He has further submitted that since no}inquiry or proceedings was pending before the said|Authority, such an information could not be called for. ¢7. Having heard the learned counsels for the.parties, this Court is satisfied that the present petitionismisconceived and cannot be entertained. The Noticee|even if deceased, the Legal Representatives or the|persons who inherit the estate of the deceased persons|will have to comply with the said Notice for furnishing| 7/8 the requisite information. The very purpose of the|provisions of Section 133 (6) of the Act is to elicit the|requisite information and details from the person|concerned. | 8. From the reply filed by the petitioner, the wife ofthe deceased Government Servant,|prima _ fac», Itappears that a large sum of|Rs.95.83 lakhwas found tobe in the credit of the Bank Account of a First Division|Clerk of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, which was|bound to raise a doubt or a query in the mind of the|Income Tax Officer and therefore, when the Information|was called from the Noticee under Section 133 (6) of the|Act, the fact of death of the Noticee may not have been|in the knowledge of the concerned Income Tax Olticer.There is nothing on record to show that the fact of deathwas within the knowledge of the Respondent - Income|Tax Officer and he still issued the Notice to a deceased|person. The Legal Representatives including the.petitioner, wife of late Mr.T.V. Sathyanarayana before| 8/8 this Court cannot protest or deny the obligation to|furnish such information including the Bank details andrelevant vouchers to be obtained from the concerned|Bank of the husband of the present petitioner. After all,the wife of a person cannot plead ignorance about a hugecash inflow in her husband’s bank account. Cutting|short of such inquiry by invoking the extra-ordinary|jurisdiction of this Court is likely to defeat the very)purpose for which the said salutary provision has beenenacted in the Income Tax Act, 1961. © 8/8 this Court cannot protest or deny the obligation to|furnish such information including the Bank details andrelevant vouchers to be obtained from the concerned|Bank of the husband of the present petitioner. After all,the wife of a person cannot plead ignorance about a hugecash inflow in her husband’s bank account. Cutting|short of such inquiry by invoking the extra-ordinary|jurisdiction of this Court is likely to defeat the very)purpose for which the said salutary provision has beenenacted in the Income Tax Act, 1961. © 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit inthe present petition filed by the petitioner. The same is)liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.No order as to costs. Sd/-. JUDGE BMV|