1 3
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.40 of 2024
Sri Sujit Kumar Deb and another
...... Petitioner(s)
V E R S U S
Income Tax Officer and others
Respondent(s)
..….
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Biplab Debnath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, DSGI,
Dr. B.N Gogoi, Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
ARINDAM LODH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
=O=R=D=E=R=
27.03.2024
Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners and also heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent-Income Tax Department.
[2] Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) Petitioner has assailed the notice dated 30.03.2021 under Section 148 of
the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18 as being issued in favour of a
dead person and being nullity in the eye of law. Petitioner has also assailed
the reassessment order dated 22.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 under
Section 147 of the IT Act read with Section 144 and Section 144B thereof
passed in an ex parte manner on the ground that any such reassessment order
against a dead person would be invalid and nullity in the eye of law.
Petitioner has also questioned the reopening of assessment against a dead
person.
(ii) Petitioner contends that Smt. Kiran Bala Deb, the owner of Kiran
Enterprise i.e. assessee died on 02.05.2020. She had filed her returns under
Section 139 of the IT Act on 13.03.2018 for the assessment year 2017-18.
However, reassessment proceedings have been initiated by the impugned
notice dated 30.03.2021 by respondent No.2 against a dead person in teeth of
the relevant provisions of the IT Act. It is submitted that the reassessment
proceedings have been concluded in an ex parte manner by the impugned
order dated 22.03.2022 against a dead person. As a result of the reassessment
proceedings, penalty proceedings under Section 272(a)(1)(d) of the Act has
been initiated by respondent No.1 against a dead assessee and petitioner,
being treated as a legal representative of the deceased assessee, has been
asked to pay tax dues of Rs.31,56,43,294/-. Therefore, petitioner has
approached this Court.”
2 3
Page of
[3] Upon hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner and after
going through the relevant documents placed on record, learned counsel for
the respondent-department was directed to file counter-affidavit by order
dated 31st January, 2024. The respondents in their counter-affidavit at
paragraph-10 have made the following statement:
“10. That as regard statement made in paragraph No.6, the answering
deponent begs to state that in paragraph No.9, the petitioners have stated that
the respondent No.1 had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272(a)(1)(d) of the
Act in the name of deceased assessee. In this mater, this humble respondent
would like to explain that the Penalty u/s 272(1)(d) of the Act was initiated
for repeated non-compliances to statutory notices on 14.03.2022 by
respondent No.2. Having no intimation of death of asessee from any source,
penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271AAC and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the
Act while passing of assessment order by respondent No.2.
The penalty cases were transferred back to the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer (JAO, in short) as per terms of Para5(2) of the Faceless Penalty
Scheme, for completion of proceedings During the course of Penalty
proceedings, notices sent in the name of Smt. Kiran Bala Deb dated
24.8.2022 & 5.8.2022 were returned by Speed Post with comment
„Addressee deceased‟. Letter was served upon the petitioner Sri Sujit Kumar
Deb by respondent No.1 making him aware of the outstanding demand and
pending penalty proceedings against his mother, late Kiran Bala Deb.
Resultantly, the petitioner submitted a copy of death certificate issued by
Dharmanagar Municipal Council vide No. D-2020:16-90056-000087 dated
21.5.2020. As the penalties were initiated after the demise of Smt. Kiran Bala
Deb i.e. against a dead assessee, the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC and u/s
272A(1)(d) of the Act were dropped by the respondent No.1 as per provisions
of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
However, the statement of the petitioners that they were made aware for the
first time about the assessment order/demand notice/penalty proceedings in
case of their mother is not acceptable as all the notices and orders were
readily available in e-filing website and were served on Registered e-mail
IDs which belonged to person related to the petitioners and notifications of
notices/orders from e-filing website were received in the registered mobile
.
numbers which belonged to petitioner themselves The answering respondent
has elaborately discussed the matter in Para 3 supra and requests your kind
consideration.
th
[4] The show-cause notice of penalty dated 25 July, 2022 under
Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the assessment
year 2017-2018 was issued against Kiran Bala Deb who is the deceased
assessee. It is annexed at page 47 of the writ petition. The respondents have
in their counter-affidavit also sought to allay the contentions as regards
conduct of the re-assessment proceedings against the original assessee on the
st
ground that no information of the death of the assessee dated 21 May, 2020
3 3
Page of
was furnished to the department by the legal heirs/petitioners herein. It is
only during the course of penalty proceedings the department came to know
of the death of the assessee as per the postal intimation in
department‟s
August, 2022.
[5] Learned counsel for the respondent-department therefore
submits that the penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC and under
Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act have been dropped by the respondent No.1 as
per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the department may be allowed liberty to work out
the remedies in accordance with law.
[6] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not object to such
proposition as they were aggrieved primarily by the penalty proceedings
though initiated against the dead assessee but directed against them as legal
heirs of the deceased assessee.
[7] Having regard to the aforesaid development that has been
brought on record by the Income Tax Department, we are of the considered
view that the grievance of the petitioner which arose due to initiation of
penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC and under Section 272A(1)(d)
of the Act have been redressed as the proceedings have been dropped by the
department for the aforesaid reasons.
[8] As such, the instant writ petition is disposed of. We leave it to
the department to work out their remedies as may be permissible in law.
ARINDAM LODH), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
(
Dipesh
SIDDHARTHA LODH Digitally signed by SIDDHARTHA LODH
Date: 2024.04.02 15:31:07 +05'30'