What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed against a dead person and were therefore void ab initio. Consequently, both orders were set aside.

The assessee is the legal heir of a deceased businessman who was a non-filer. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order against the deceased, and the CIT(A) confirmed it, despite being aware of the death. The assessee provided the death certificate to the authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed against a deceased person, with knowledge of their death, is valid. The validity of assessment proceedings initiated against a dead individual.

Pramila Devi L/H Late Ram Nath… vs ITO | ITAT Patna 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI RAJESH KUMAR & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

order

: September 25th, 2024 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 25.07.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 30.11.2019.

I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramila Devi, L/H Late Ram Nath Chaudhary. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is the legal heir of Late Ramnath Chaudhary who was the proprietor of business of running a petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. As per the assessment order assessee (Late Ramnath Chaudhary) is the non-filer and Department was in possession of an information about huge cash transaction of Rs. 81,97,910/-. It is also in the assessment order that assessee has failed to furnish return of income and accordingly assessment order was passed by assessing income at Rs. 15,51,810/-. The said order was challenged by the legal representative of the assessee (Late Ramnath Chaudhary) but the same has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the assessment order has been passed against a dead person and it was in the notice of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') as well as ld. CIT(A) but in spite of that assessment order was passed against the dead person i.e. ab initio void. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the appellant being the legal heir of the deceased, informed that Late Ramnath Chaudhary has expired and necessary evidence as such death certificate has also been filed.

We have perused the order of the ld. AO and also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) and find that it is not in dispute that Ramnath Chaudhary had already died and we further find that assessment order was passed against Late Ramnath Chaudhary as well as ld. CIT(A) has also passed an order against Late Ramnath Chaudhary though it was in the notice that Ramnath Chaudhary is no more in the world. 2.1. Keeping in view the above facts that the assessment order as well as the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is against a dead person i.e. ab initio void. Accordingly, the assessment order as well as the impugned order in which ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO is set aside.

PRAMILA DEVI L/H LATE RAM NATH CHAUDHARY,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), MUZAFFARPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments