2025 (7) TMI 899 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment order against deceased assessee's legal heirs invalid without proper notice service under Section 147

Mr. Suresh Kumar Channappa, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Channappa Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (4), Bengaluru, Income-Tax Officer (INV.), Unit 1 (1), Bengaluru, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru, Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Range 2, Bengaluru, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle 2 (4), Bengaluru, Director General Of Income-Tax (Inv.) Bengaluru.

Mr. Suresh Kumar Channappa, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Channappa Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (4), Bengaluru, Income-Tax Officer ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:Whether the impugned assessment order, notice of demand, penalty order, and related notices issued under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, can be sustained when the petitioners, as legal heirs of the deceased assessee, were not brought on record or given an opportunity to be heard.Whether proper service of notices was effected on the petitioners in accordance with the procedural requirements under the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly when notices were dispatched by registered post but no acknowledgment or proof of service was placed on record.The procedural propriety and legality of passing assessment and penalty orders against legal heirs without ensuring their inclusion on record and without providing them an opportunity to contest or respond.Whether the Income Tax Department's practice of maintaining only postal receipts without integrated real-time tracking or acknowledgment of service complies with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.The appropriate remedial course, including quashing of impugned orders and remand for fresh consideration, in light of the procedural irregularities and non-compliance with principles of natural justice.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Assessment and Penalty Orders against Legal Heirs Not Brought on RecordThe legal framework governing assessment and penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, mandates that all persons liable to pay tax or penalty must be brought on record and given an opportunity to be heard before passing any adverse order. Precedents emphasize adherence to principles of natural justice, including notice and hearing, particularly when dealing with legal heirs of a deceased assessee.The Court observed that the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased Sri Channappa but were not brought on record in the impugned orders. Only the deceased's wife and another sibling were included. The petitioners contended that they had not been given an opportunity to place their say on record, which is a fundamental requirement before passing assessment or penalty orders.The Court found merit in this contention, holding that passing orders against the petitioners without bringing them on record and without issuing proper notice was contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. The Court reasoned that the petitioners being legal heirs have a legal right to be heard and to participate in the proceedings.The respondents did not dispute the petitioners' status as legal heirs but contended that notices were issued to them. However, the Court found that no documentary evidence of service or acknowledgment was placed on record to substantiate effective service of notices on the petitioners.Issue 2: Service of Notices and Procedural ComplianceThe Income-tax Act requires that notices under Sections 144, 147, 148, 156, and penalty provisions be served on the concerned parties. The respondents relied on registered post receipts as proof of dispatch.The Court critically examined the evidence and noted that the Income Tax Department maintains only postal receipts issued by the Postal Department for registered post dispatched but does not maintain integrated records confirming actual service or acknowledgment by the recipients. The Court expressed surprise at the lack of integration between the Postal Department and the Income Tax Department, especially when the Court itself has implemented real-time postal tracking for its notices.The Court held that mere dispatch receipts without acknowledgment or proof of delivery do not satisfy the requirement of effective service. The absence of any document evidencing service on the petitioners rendered the impugned orders invalid as the petitioners were not properly served and thus denied the opportunity to be heard.Issue 3: Remedial Measures and Directions for Fresh ConsiderationGiven the procedural lapses and non-compliance with principles of natural justice, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order, notices of demand, penalty order, and computation sheet for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Court remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration.The Court directed that the petitioners be brought on record as legal heirs and be afforded an opportunity to file objections, produce documents, and examine and cross-examine witnesses. The petitioners were directed to appear before the respondent on a specified date without requiring further notice, ensuring expeditious disposal.The Court also permitted the Income Tax Department to bring any other legal heirs on record, ensuring all interested parties are included in the proceedings.Contentions regarding the Section 148 notice were kept open, indicating that the Court did not express any opinion on the validity of the reopening notice itself, leaving that issue to be decided afresh on merits after proper notice and hearing.Finally, the Court ordered a compliance report regarding integration of postal service records with the Income Tax Department to ensure proper tracking and proof of service in the future, reflecting a concern for procedural reforms.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'In view of the fact that there is no document that has been placed on record evidencing service of notice on the petitioners and the petitioners being on record as legal heirs of the late Sri. Channappa, I am of the considered opinion that orders could not have been passed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners by showing them as parties to the said order without there being a notice issued and served.'This pronouncement underscores the core principle that effective service of notice is indispensable before passing any adverse order, especially in tax proceedings involving legal heirs.The Court established the principle that all legal heirs must be brought on record and given an opportunity to be heard before assessment or penalty orders are passed under the Income-tax Act.The Court's directions for remand and fresh consideration emphasize adherence to procedural fairness and natural justice, mandating that objections be considered and witnesses examined in accordance with law.The Court's observation on the lack of integration between the Postal Department and the Income Tax Department highlights the necessity for procedural reforms to ensure transparency and accountability in service of statutory notices.On the issue of Section 148 notice, the Court kept all contentions open, indicating that the validity of reopening the assessment was not decided at this stage but would be subject to fresh consideration post proper notice and hearing.