Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.6 On identical facts, the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty Vs. ACIT, Circle 26(1), Mumbai reported in [2021] 129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka) which held as under:

9. The admitted facts relevant for the present purpose are that the assessee -

Kurkal Gopal Shetty has died on 11-11-2014 in United Kingdom and the notice under section 148 for the first time was issued on 28-3-2018 in the name of Kurkal Gopal Shetty. It must also be noted that the last date for initiation of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2011-12 was 31-3-2018.

14. In the present facts, admittedly, the proceedings are initiated under section 148 for reassessment relating to escapement of income of late Kurkal Gopal Shetty and such proceedings as has been initiated in the year 2018 by when Kurkal Gopal Shetty had already died (on 11-11-2014). The proceedings in terms of section 159(2)(b) ought to have been taken against the legal representatives of late Kurkal Gopal Shetty at the first instance. It ought to be noted that the period allowable for initiating the proceedings under section 148 is the period prescribed under section 149(1)(b) which position is not in dispute and accordingly, proceedings ought to have been initiated as on 31-3-2018.

15. The question as to whether proceedings initiated against the deceased Kurkal Gopal Shetty was sufficient to continue proceedings of reassessment as regards the legal representatives is a matter that requires to be answered. The learned counsel for the revenue would contend that the concept of abatement cannot be extended to assessment proceedings and where the original assessee has died, the proceedings against his legal representatives would be good in law as made out under section 159(2) of the Act as well as in light of the definition of assessee under section 2(7)(b) read with section 159 is a matter that also requires consideration.

16. There is no dispute as regards to the general proposition that proceedings against an assessee would continue even after his death as against his legal representatives and there would be no abatement of such proceedings. However, in the present case, the question is as regards to the initiation of proceedings under section 148 vis-à-vis the legal representatives of the deceased Kurkal Gopal Jadagadder Pakkerappa, Shikaripura Shetty. As noticed earlier, notice issued at the first instance on 28-3-2018 is as regards Kurkal Gopal Shetty and at that relevant point of time, the said assessee was dead. It comes out from the subsequent proceedings that the revenue, upon being informed by the 2nd petitioner through an e-mail on 30-5-2018 that Kurkal Gopal Shetty had died, has issued notice to the legal representatives on 19-11- 2018 and on 21-12-2018 under section 142 and hence, in effect, there was no notice to the petitioners with respect to the initiation of proceedings for reassessment under section 148. The proceedings under section 142 being a part of the re-assessment proceedings, the starting point for initiation of proceedings under section 148 is the issuance of notice, which notice to be valid is required to be initiated within the time prescribed under section 149(1)(b). Notice issued against Kurkal Gopal Shetty on 28-3-2018 being against a dead person, at the very inception would not be a tenable notice for initiation of proceedings under section 148 as regards the legal representatives insofar as any proceedings against the legal representatives are to be governed by Section 159. While section 159(2)(a) provides for continuation of proceedings against the legal representatives when initiated against the assessee when he was alive. Clearly section 159(2)(b) would require a separate notice to be issued under section 148 within the time prescribed under section 149(1)(b) as against the legal representatives directly. If such proceedings are initiated beyond the time prescribed under section 149(1)(b) such proceedings would not be valid.