Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order sustaining additions made by the AO. The primary contention was that the assessment order and appellate order were passed in the name of a deceased person, making them void-ab-initio. The assessee, Mahendra Singh Jain, had passed away before the assessment order was issued.
Held
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings and orders passed in the name of a deceased person, without substituting the legal representatives, are without jurisdiction and thus quashed. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to reasonable cause.
Key Issues
Whether assessment proceedings and orders passed in the name of a deceased assessee are legally valid and not void-ab-initio.
Sections Cited
142(1), 144, 159, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 MAHENDRA SINGH JAIN, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CH. NO. 206-207, ANSAL SATYAM, WARD 1(4), GHAZIABAD RDC, RAJNAGAR, GHAZIABAD (PAN: AFHPJ7049A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govil Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A), Patnan for AY 2012-13 on the following grounds:-
1. Because, the order of the ld. Lower authority is bad in law and against the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. Because, the CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the impugned proceeding and assessment order whereby all the notices u/s. 142(1)/144 and impugned order were issued in the name of deceased person against the provisions of section 159 of the Act hence, the order is null and void.
3. Because, without prejudice to above, ld. CIT(A) further ered in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,57,000/- being cash deposited by another joint account holder, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jain, as also accepted by revenue in this case, merely by stating that name of said Sandeep Kumar Jain is mentioned manually on bank statement.
4. Because, ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- being cash deposited by assessee out of his life savings.
At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I am of the of the considered view that the reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to the assessee, hence, I condone the delay in dispute.
Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that assessment order as well as appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A), both have been passed on a dead person therefore, the said orders are illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio and thus, nullity. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. The primary contention of the Ld. AR is that assessment order passed by the AO has been issued in the name of deceased, hence, proceeding arises therefrom are vitiated. He informed that Shri Mahendra Singh Jain died on 14.07.2019 as is evident from his death certificate issued on 09.08.2019 placed on record. However, the assessment order 2 | P a g e was passed on 13.11.2019 u/s. 144/147 of the Act in the name of the deceased person, without substituting the name of legal representatives of deceased. Thus, I hold that assessment proceedings and assessment order in the name of dead person is without jurisdiction and thus the same is hereby quashed. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited 265 Taxman 515 wherein, it has been categorically held that where assessment order is passed in the name of a non existing entity, the same is without jurisdiction and has to be set aside.