Appanna Seetharamu, LR B.S. Nagarathna v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward No. -3(2)(2), Bengaluru / Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Bangalore
[Citation -2019-LL-0903-118]

Citation 2019-LL-0903-118
Appellant Name Appanna Seetharamu, LR B.S. Nagarathna
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Ward No. -3(2)(2), Bengaluru / Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Bangalore
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 03/09/2019
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags sufficient compliance • condonation of delay • dead person • legal heir
Bot Summary: With the consent of both the learned counsels, the appeal is taken up for disposal. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellate authorities committed an error in proceeding to hold that the original notice dated 03rd September, 2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on a dead person would be sufficient compliance to Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, as the authorised representative of the dead person represented the case and the legal heir of the deceased was brought on record. The learned Senior Counsel submits that it is apparent on the face of the record that since the original notice was issued against a dead person, the appellate authorities committed an error in proceeding since the notice itself could not have been sustained. The learned counsel for the respondent-revenue would try to justify the impugned order. We have heard the learned counsels and this Court is convinced that the impugned order requires to be set aside since the notice itself was issued against a dead person. The order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(2), Bangalore dated 24th March, 2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is also set aside. The appellant is herein directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 19th September, 2019 at 11.00 am, without waiting for further notice in this regard.


IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 PRESENT HON BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.877/2018 BETWEEN: SRI.APPANNA SEETHARAMU SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR, SMT B.S.NAGARATHNA, W/O LATE APPANNA SEETHARAMU, AGED 58 YEARS, NO.41, MATHRUKRUPA, 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS, IST STAGE, 3RD PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 040. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADV.) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.3(2)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 C.R.BUILDING, 2 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADV. FOR SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31/05/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.410/BANG/2018 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER DATED:01/02/2018 BEARING NO. 93/CIT(A)/-3/BAN/2016-17 AND ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(2), BENGALURU DATED:24/03/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014. PRAYING TO: 1. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE.2. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 410/BANG/2018 DATED:31/05/2018 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER DATED:01/02/2018 BEARING NO. 93/CIT(A)-3/BAN/2016-17 AND ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), BENGALURU DATED:24/03/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 AND ETC.,. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT IA.I of 2019 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 84 days in filing appeal. cause shown for delay is taken as sufficient. Therefore, IA.I of 2019 is allowed and delay of 84 days in filing appeal is condoned. 3 2. With consent of both learned counsels, appeal is taken up for disposal. 3. learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant submits that appellate authorities committed error in proceeding to hold that original notice dated 03rd September, 2014 issued under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act on dead person (the assessee) would be sufficient compliance to Section 159 of Income Tax Act, as authorised representative of dead person represented case and legal heir of deceased was brought on record. learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that it is apparent on face of record that since original notice was issued against dead person, appellate authorities committed error in proceeding since notice itself could not have been sustained. 4. learned counsel for respondent-revenue would try to justify impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsels and this Court is convinced that impugned order requires to be set aside since notice itself was issued against dead person. In that view 4 of matter, appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 31st May, 2018 confirming order of Appellate Commissioner dated 01st February, 2018 is hereby set aside. Consequently, order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(2), Bangalore dated 24th March, 2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14 is also set aside. matter is remanded back to Assessing Officer to redo entire procedure bearing in mind that assessee is no more. appellant is herein directed to appear before Assessing Officer on 19th September, 2019 at 11.00 am, without waiting for further notice in this regard. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Appanna Seetharamu, LR B.S. Nagarathna v. Income-tax Officer, Ward No. -3(2)(2), Bengaluru / Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Bangalore
Report Error