2018 (2) TMI 183 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Notice u/s 133 (6) - Notice addressed to a deceased person - liability of legal representatives - Held that - This Court is satisfied that the present petition is misconceived and cannot be entertained. The Noticee even if deceased, the Legal Representatives or the persons who inherit the estate of the decreased persons will have to comply with the said Notice for furnishing the requisite information. The very purpose of the provisions of Section 133 (6) of the Act is to elicit the requisite information and details from the person concerned. From the reply filed by the petitioner, the wife of the deceased Government Servant, prima facie, it appears that a large sum of ₹ 95.83 lakh was found to be in the credit of the Bank Account of a First Division Clerk of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, which was bound to raise a doubt or a query in the mind of the Income Tax Officer and therefore, when the Information was called from the Noticee under Section 133 (6) of the Act, the fact of death of the Noticee may not have been in the knowledge of the concerned Income Tax Officer. There is nothing or record to show that the fact of death was within the knowledge of the Respondent - Income Tax Officer and he still issued the Notice to a deceased person. The Legal Representatives including the petitioner, wife of late Mr. T. V. Sathyanarayana before this court cannot protest or deny the obligation to furnish such information including the Bank details and relevant vouchers to be obtained from the concerned Bank of the husband of the present petitioner. After all, the wife of a person cannot plead ignorance about a huge cash inflow in her husband s bank account. - Decided in favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned Notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding credit entry in deceased person's bank account.

Analysis:
The petitioner, wife of a deceased individual, challenged a Notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding a credit entry in the deceased's bank account. The petitioner contended that since the Notice was addressed to the deceased person, she was not accountable to provide the required information. The petitioner's counsel argued that as per the Act, the authority can require information from any person, including banking companies, for inquiries or proceedings under the Act. The counsel further highlighted that the Notice should have been issued in the name of the petitioner, not the deceased.

The Court noted that the purpose of Section 133(6) is to obtain relevant information for tax inquiries. Despite the Notice being issued to a deceased person, the Court emphasized that legal representatives or inheritors of the deceased's estate must comply with such requests for information. The Court found that the large sum in the deceased's bank account warranted an inquiry by the Income Tax Officer, even if the officer was unaware of the person's death when issuing the Notice. The Court stressed that the petitioner, as the deceased's wife, cannot claim ignorance regarding significant financial transactions in her husband's account.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge, stating that the obligation to provide information, including bank details, remains with the legal representatives or inheritors of the deceased. Dismissing the petition, the Court highlighted that avoiding such inquiries through court intervention would defeat the purpose of the provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and ordered its dismissal without costs.