LATE SANT RAM (THREW KRISHNA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI SANT RAM),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 54(5), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed in the name of a deceased person, without impleading the legal representative, is invalid and void ab initio. Proceedings should have been taken against the legal representative as per Section 159 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Late Sh. Sant Ram, passed away before the assessment order was passed. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) in the name of the deceased assessee. The Assessing Officer was aware of the assessee's death and the legal heir.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without impleading the legal heir is valid. Whether the notice under Section 143(2) issued to a deceased assessee is legally sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 17.05.2019, pertaining to AY 201- 15.
Apart from the regular grounds of appeal on merits, the assessee in this appeal has taken following additional/legal grounds:- Ground No.1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the impugned Assessment order is invalid and illegal since jurisdictional Notice U/s 143(2) issued, as well as impugned Assessment order framed in the name of dead person.” Ground No.2 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the impugned Assessment order is without jurisdiction and ab initio void due to non-issuance and service of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the assessee has filed return of income on 27.09.2014. However, the assessee (Late Sant Ram) got expired on 13.02.2015. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer ( in short ‘the AO’) on 22.09.2015 in the name of the deceased assessee i.e. the dead person. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further invited my attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the fact that the assessee had died was duly brought to the knowledge of the AO and the AO has duly noted this fact in the assessment order, which read as under:-
“Notice u/s 142(1) were issued and in response to the said notices, Sh. Mohd. Saifullah, Advocate/authorized representative of the assessee attended the office on behalf of assessee and informed that Sh. Sant Ram was passed away and Smt. Krishna W/o Late Sh. Sant Ram is the legal heir on behalf of her husband. Notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act was also issued to Smt. Krishna L/H of Sh. Sant Ram on 07/10/2016.”
The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that despite duly informed that the assessee has died, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment in the name of dead person, and hence the assessment order is wrong, illegal and void ab initio. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has referred to section 159(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and has submitted that as per the said provisions, any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative and further that as per sub section 159(3)of the Act, the legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee. However, in this case, the AO without impleading the legal representative of the assessee, framed the assessment in the name of dead person which is void and the same is accordingly quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.06.2022.
More judgments on Section 159
- Shruti Amar Mehta, Pune vs ACIT Cir-1(1), PuneITA 2683/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Late Bhoodev Singh Through L/H Bimla Devi… vs ITO Ward 68(8), DelhiITA 8284/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Nandakumari Karlapudi, Guntur vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)…ITA 487/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Jyoti Satish Naik As Wife and Legal Heir of… vs ITO, Ward 4(4), ThaneITA 2373/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026