IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

202 IOIN-1-CWP-15776-2003 in/and CWP-15776-2003 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 ANITA RANI ...Petitioner Vs.

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ishwinderpal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate, Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Muskan Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Tanya Kumar, Advocate for the respondent ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 09.08.2002 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondent has attached bank account to recover dues of her husband.

2. The respondent-Revenue assessed liability of Rs.1,18,615/- against M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram, Sangrur. The liability could not be recovered from said firm. Krishan Kumar husband of the petitioner was one of the partners of M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram. The respondent on account of non-recovery of aforesaid amount from partnership firm as well as its partners served notice dated 09.08.2002 upon Bank informing that a sum of Rs.1,18,615/- is due from Krishan Kumar son of Sham Lal as legal heir of Sham Lal and partner of M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram, Sangrur. There was credit balance in the account of Rs.60,002/-. The account which was attached was a joint account of Krishan Kumar and Anita Rani (petitioner).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that money lying in the bank account represented rental income. Said income had no concern with liabilities of M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram. There is nothing on record disclosing that petitioner had inherited property from partners of M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram. The respondent could attach property to the extent of estate of partners of M/s Sham Lal Siri Ram.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was responsible to prove that she had not inherited property. In the absence of evidence led by petitioner, the respondent was free to attach available properties including bank account.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Section 159 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘1961 Act’) creates liability of legal representatives and Section 189 of 1961 Act deals with dissolution of firm or discontinued business. Said sections read as:-

“159. Legal representatives.—(1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased.

(2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-

section (1),—

(a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased;

(b) any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and (c) all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.

(3) The legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee.

(4) Every legal representative shall be personally liable for any tax payable by him in his capacity as legal representative if, while his liability for tax remains undischarged, he creates a charge on or disposes of or parts with any assets of the estate of the deceased, which are in, or may come into, his possession, but such liability shall be limited to the value of the asset so charged, disposed of or parted with.

(5) The provisio