ASHRAJ ALI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHAFIQ AHMED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 258/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 August 2026AY 2020-215 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed on a deceased person is void ab initio. Following various High Court decisions, the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment framed were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee passed away before the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order. The legal heir raised this issue before the CIT(A), who remitted the matter back to the AO. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT challenged the assessment order passed on a dead person.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed on a deceased assessee, without bringing the legal heirs on record, is valid in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “DB” DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Juneja, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT
Hearing: 21.07.2026

ITA No.258/DDN/2026 ASHRAJ ALI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH “DB” DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.258/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 ASHRAJ ALI, TRHOUGH LEGAL HEIR SHAFIQ, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Post Office Kanwali, GMS Road, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, Uttarakhand 248001. Ward 1(1)(1), Dehradun, PAN No. AJMPA5725H Uttarakhand 248001. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri K.K. Juneja, Adv. Revenue by Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT Date of hearing: 21.07.2026 Pronouncement on 07.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 10.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has passed an ex parte order dated 23.01.2025. It transpires from the record that the assessee passed away on 27.01.2024, i.e. much before the passing of the order by the Ld. AO.

1.2 The legal heir of the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where the issue of the passing of an assessment order on a dead person was duly raised as a ground of appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) remitted the matter back to the file of Ld. AO to adjudicate afresh on the legal heirs.

ITA No.258/DDN/2026 ASHRAJ ALI It is also seen that there is an observation in the impugned order that the proceedings on a dead person would not be automatically void if the AO was not made aware of the passing away of the assessee. Apparently, this was the position in this case.

1.3 Further aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with a number of grounds challenging the reopening as also two grounds have been taken regarding passing an assessment order on a dead person (grounds of appeal 6 & 7).

2.

Before us the Ld. AR requested that the grounds pertaining to the passing of assessment order on a dead person may be adjudicated before proceeding any further on the merits of the case. It was argued that the assessee expired on 27.01.2024 and his death certificate was available at page 17 of the Paper Book. It was the submission that a number of judicial authorities have held that the survivors or heirs of a deceased person are not obliged to inform the Department about such a happening and in spite of not informing about the passing away of an assessee, the Courts have held that subsequent assessment proceedings were void. The Ld. AR relied on a number of authorities but primarily placed before us for our perusal the case of a coordinate bench pertaining to Neeraj Kataria [ITA 4979/Del/2025, order dated 10.03.2026].

2.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR averred that the AO was never informed about the demise of the assessee and therefore there was no 2

ITA No.258/DDN/2026 ASHRAJ ALI way that the Ld. AO could be aware of the death of the assessee. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment for considering the facts of the case, including the fact of the death of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied on a coordinate bench order in the case of Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel vs. ITO (deceased), in ITA Nos. 1105 & 1106/Ahd./2025, order dated 30.09.2025, to canvass the point that in case the assessee’s death was not informed to the AO then the assessment proceedings could not be held to be void but merely needed to be remanded back to the Ld. AO to bring the legal heirs on record and thereafter to frame a fresh assessment order.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We have also perused the orders of various ITAT Benches and Hon’ble High Courts placed before us for our perusal. It is an admitted fact that the assessee passed away while the assessment proceedings were in progress. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. AO had no means of knowing whether the assessee was alive or not. In this regard, we are persuaded by the order of a coordinate bench in the case of Neeraj Kataria (supra) where the following has been observed and a number of authorities have been discussed: -

“9. We observed that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition for the reason that return was filed by the assessee and there was no communication from the legal heirs to the department about the death of the assessee i.e. late Neeraj Kataria. We observed that the Hon’ble

ITA No.258/DDN/2026 ASHRAJ ALI Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerapan vs. ITO (95 Taxmann.com 155) held that notice issued in the name of dead person is not enforceable in law. Further, it was also held that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the legal representative of deceased to immediately intimate death of assessee or take steps to cancel PAN registration. 10. We observed that in the case of Rashid Lal vs. ITO (77 Taxmann.com 39) the facts before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court were that the assessee expired on 02.12.2009 and after a period of six years the AO issued notice u/s 148 in the name of deceased assessee to reopen assessment for the AY 2009-10. The legal heir of deceased assessee informed the AO that the assessee had already expired on 02.12.2009 and therefore, notice issued in the name of deceased assessee is not valid. Despite this fact the AO completed the assessment on the deceased assessee u/s 147 of the Act and in such circumstances the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the AO is wrong in proceeding to complete the assessment on the deceased assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the AO should have brought legal heir on record and should have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the legal heir of the deceased assessee. 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Braham Prakash vs. ITO (275 ITR 242) held that since the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on a deceased assessee could not be served, the notice of demand u/s 22(1) and also the assessment order and the order of penalty were to be quashed. Similar view has been taken in the Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO [101 Taxmann.com 362 (Guj.)]. 12. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. ACIT (103 Taxmann.com 188) examined the scope of provision of Section 292B r.w.s. 148 of the Act and held that for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment notice should be issued in the name of living person i.e. legal heir of deceased assessee. Section 292B could not be invoked to correct the foundational/substantial error. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dharamraj vs. ITO (2022) (441 ITR 462) held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on a deceased person is null and void, all consequent proceedings and orders including the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act and all the subsequent notices issued were equally tainted and were set aside. The above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case. …… 15. In these circumstances respectfully following the decisions referred to above we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment framed pursuant to such notice on the assessee Late Neeraj Kataria for the AY 2019-20 is illegal, bad in law and void-ab- initio and the same is hereby quashed.”

ITA No.258/DDN/2026 ASHRAJ ALI Considering that the assessment order has been passed on a dead person and respectfully following the order in the case of Neeraj Kataria (supra), it is held that the assessment proceedings were void ab initio. Accordingly, the grounds of the assessee challenging the assessment on a dead person are allowed, leading to the assessee’s appeal being allowed. We may add that the rest of the grounds are not adjudicated and are left open.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →