- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43168 WP No. 28412 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28412 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MRS. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MR.MILAN PARIKH, R/AT NO.603, 6TH FLOOR, RENAISSANCE PARK-2,1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 055. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RUPA RON. FOR SRI. KIRAN V RON, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHRADHA BUILDING, SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUT ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, - 590 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHRADHA BUILDING, SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUT ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA – 402 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING DIS AND ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2024-25/1072451835(1) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43168 WP No. 28412 of 2025 DATED 30.12.2024 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ALONG WITH THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petitioner, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “ (a) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the impugned Assessment Order bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/144/2024- 25/1072451835(1) dated 30.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 along with the consequent Demand notice issued by the Respondent No.1 ANNEXURE - A; and b) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the Penalty Order passed u/s 271 (1)(b) bearing DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2025- 26/1080261006(1) dated 02.09.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 along with the demand notice at ANNEXURE- B. c) GRANT such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of e case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43168 WP No. 28412 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the wife of one Milan Parikh, who expired on 08.05.2021. During his lifetime, the respondents initiated proceedings, which culminated in several ex-parte assessment orders as against the aforesaid late Milan Parikh, aggrieved by which, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.25980/2023 and connected matters, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2023 by setting aside the ex-parte assessment orders as against the petitioner’s husband – Milan Parikh and remitted the matters back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh to the stage of the petitioner submitting reply to the Notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’). 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid remand order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25980/2023 and connected matters, the respondents once again issued notices dated 30.10.2024 and 14.11.2024 to the petitioner under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act, to which also, petitioner did not submit any reply, on account of which, respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2024, to which also the petitioner did not submit any reply, as a result of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43168 WP No. 28412 of 2025 which, respondents proceeded to pass the ex-parte assessment order, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a reply to the penalty proceedings, despite which, the respondents passed the impugned penalty order dated 02.09.2025 by respondent No.1, which is also assailed in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the wife and legal representative of late Milan Parikh, the petitioner did not inherit any estate and as such, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 2(29) of the I.T. Act, petitioner could not be fastened or saddled with any liability in relation to the assessment proceedings pertaining to her deceased husband and this aspect has not been considered by the respondents before passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – Revenue submits that since the petitioner did not appear before the respondents to establish that she did not inherit any estate from her - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43168 WP No. 28412 of 2025 husband – Milan Parikh, the respondents was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 8. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit reply before the respondents passing the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures – A and B and remit the matter back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders at Annexures – A and B passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43168 WP No. 28412 of 2025 (iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the 1st respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.