2017 (12) TMI 677 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment against legal heirs - making the petitioners liable for the alleged income tax, which was payable by the petitioners father - Held that - This Court finds that the issues canvassed by the petitioners in these writ petitions are complicated questions of fact. Rather they are disputed questions of fact, which are needed to be established by the petitioners - the propounders of the affidavits. Therefore, the petitioners should necessarily avail the remedy under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides for an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Further, it is relevant to point out that the Tribunal, being the last forum, which can adjudicate into the factual disputes, would be well within its jurisdiction to call for the records, examine and appreciate the correctness of the same, make a thorough exercise and then come to a conclusion as to whether the order of assessment has been passed in a proper manner in due compliance of the provisions of the said Act. Hence, the petitioners have to avail the appeal remedy provided under the said Act. For all the above reasons, this Court holds that the writ petitions are not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over common assessment order for the year 2009-10 after the father's demise.
2. Allegations of disinheriting the children in the father's will.
3. Violation of natural justice in assessment proceedings.
4. Disputed facts regarding legal heirship and addresses.
5. Petitioners' contention of not receiving notice for assessment proceedings.
6. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioners, siblings and children of the deceased Mr. P.N. Subramani, challenged a common assessment order issued after their father's passing in 2010. They argued that their father disinherited them in his will, contradicting the divorce decree wherein their mother renounced claims against him. The petitioners claimed the assessment proceedings violated natural justice, as they were unaware and not given a chance to participate. Discrepancies in legal heirship details and addresses added to their argument of lack of notice. However, the court found these issues to be factual disputes requiring resolution through the Income Tax Act's appeal process rather than a writ petition.

The court emphasized that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the appropriate forum to address disputed factual matters. It highlighted the Tribunal's authority to review records, assess compliance with tax laws, and make informed decisions on the assessment's validity. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioners to pursue their grievances through the appeal mechanism provided by the Income Tax Act. While the writ petitions were rejected without costs, the petitioners were granted the liberty to approach the Tribunal to challenge the orders issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court stressed that the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to examine both factual and legal aspects raised by the petitioners for a thorough adjudication.