Wp/10708/2022 Of Srikanth B v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.04.2022 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMARW.P.NO.10708 OF 2022 ANDW.M.P.NOS.10346 & 10347 OF 2022 Srikanth B Income Tax OfficerNon Corporate Ward 19(1) CheIncome Tax DepartmentNo.607, 6th Floor, Aayakar BhawanAnnexe Building, No.121,MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai – 600 034. Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call forthe records of the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 and bearingDIN No.ITBA/AST/S/ 147/2021-22/1042291030(1) for the AY 2017-18for PAN No. passed by the respondent and to quash thesame, and to also consequentially set aside the penalty anddemand Notices dated 31.03.2022 bearing DIN & Notice Nos:ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2021-22/1042291364(1),ITBA/PNL/S/271F/2021-22/1042293938(1) and ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1042291120(1) issuedunder Section 271AAC(1), Section 274 read with Section 271F andSection 156 respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorari tocall for the records of the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022and bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/ 147/2021-22/1042291030(1) for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AY 2017-18 for PAN No. passed by the respondent and toquash the same, and to also consequentially set aside thepenalty and demand Notices dated 31.03.2022 bearing DIN & NoticeNos:ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2021-22/1042291364(1),ITBA/PNL/S/271F/ 2021-22/1042293938(1) and ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1042291120(1) issued under Section 271AAC(1), Section 274read with Section 271F and Section 156 respectively of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 2. Against the assessment order dated 31.03.022 for theassessment year 2017-18 under Section 147 read with Section 144of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the presentwrit petition has been filed. 3. The present petitioner viz., Srikanth claimed to be thenephew of one Venkatadri who was the assessee before therespondent Department. Against the said Venkatadri, the 147proceedings was initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148on 29.03.2021. However, prior to the said notice was issuedunder Section 148, the said Venkatadri died on 23.05.2018. Thewife of the said Venkatadri one Champakam became the sole legalheir of Venkatadri as their son was pre-deceased person.Thereafter, notice seems to have been issued in the name of thewife of the said Venkatadri. Subsequently the wife of Venkatadrialso died on 29.03.2021. Thereafter, the notice has been issuedin the name of Venkatadri and also to the petitioner, being thelegal heir or legal representative of the deceased Venkatadri,who was the original assessee, under Section 142(1) of the Act,and again Section 148 notice dated 11.03.2022 was issued againstthe petitioner and each time, when such notices were issued, itwas taken by the petitioner that, he was only a nephew of thedeceased Venkatadri or the deceased Champakam and therefore, heis not the legal heir or legal representative of the deceasedassessee, hence, he is not liable to be proceeded by the Revenueunder the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 4. Despite the reply had been given by the petitioner,finally on 16.03.2022, the Revenue proceeded to complete theassessment and passed the impugned assessment order on21.03.2022, challenging the same, on the ground that, it hasbeen proceeded wrongly against the petitioner who not being thelegal heir or legal representative of the deceased assessee,this writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard Mr.Karthik Sundaram, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner who pointed out the aforestated facts and seeksindulgence of this Court against the impugned assessment orderon the said ground. 6. However, Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned Standing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Despite the reply had been given by the petitioner,finally on 16.03.2022, the Revenue proceeded to complete theassessment and passed the impugned assessment order on21.03.2022, challenging the same, on the ground that, it hasbeen proceeded wrongly against the petitioner who not being thelegal heir or legal representative of the deceased assessee,this writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard Mr.Karthik Sundaram, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner who pointed out the aforestated facts and seeksindulgence of this Court against the impugned assessment orderon the said ground. 6. However, Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned Standing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Counsel appearing for the respondent, relying upon Section 159of the Income Tax Act as well as the definition given to theterm “legal representative”, by citing Section 2(29) of theIncome Tax Act which refers to Section 2(11) of the CivilProcedure Code, would point out that, whoever inherited theestate or intermeddled with the estate of the deceased assesseeagainst such person proceedings can be made by the Revenue underthe provisions of the Income Tax Act with regard to the recoveryof any tax due payable by the deceased assessee. 7. I have considered the said submissions made by thelearned respective counsel. In this context, whether thepetitioner has gained anything from the deceased assesseethrough their Bank accounts to the extent of Rs.70 Lakhs and ifso, whether the said amount belongs to the original assesseeVenkatadri or somebody's and within the said amount, since thetax due under the impugned order to the extent of Rs.61 Lakhswould be covered or not, are the factual matrix, which can begone into only by the Appellate Authority and not by this Court. 8. Moreover, there is no violation of principles of naturaljustice in this case as the petitioner also has been issued witha notice on the aforestated circumstances and after giving suchan opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order ofassessment since been passed, it cannot be assailed before thisCourt on the ground of violation of principles of naturaljustice or any other valuable ground, under which theextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitationto hold that this writ petition cannot be entertained for suchreasons as it is not maintainable before this Court byrelegating the petitioner to go before the Appellate Authorityfor filing a quantum appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed with theaforesaid observation. However, the learned counsel for thepetitioner seeks two weeks time to file quantum appeal and thepetitioner is permitted to file quantum appeal before theCommissioner (Appeals) within two weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sgl Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Additional / Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.Karthik Sundaram, Advocate, S.R.No.29308 +1cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.29226 W.P.No.10708 of 2022 SSB(CO)PM/24/05/2022