What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that an order passed against a dead person is a nullity. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee challenged an assessment order before the CIT(A). During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee died, but the CIT(A) passed an order in the name of the deceased assessee. The legal heir then filed an appeal against this order.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed by the CIT(A) against a deceased assessee is valid. The need to substitute the legal heir in the appeal proceedings.

Rinku Banerji Legal Heir of Late… vs I.T.O., Ward - 22(2) | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Musaddi, AR

For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2393/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Rinku Banerji [Legal heir of Vs. ITO, Ward-22(2), Kolkata Late Pratip Banerji] 61B, Southend Park, Kolkata West Bengal-700 020 [PAN: AEBPB1373E] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Anuj Musaddi, AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 07.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order has been framed on 26.12.2019 against Shri Pratip Banerji u/s 143(3) of the Act by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, the said Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the pendency of the first Appeal, the Assessee Shri

ITA No.2393/Kol/2025 Rinku Banerji, Legal Heir of Late Pratip Banerji; A.Y: 2017-18 Pratip Banjerji died on 18.01.2021; however, an order came to be passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.08.2025 by dismissing the Appeal filed by the Assessee.

Aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.08.2025, the Legal Heir of the Assessee has challenged the legality or otherwise of the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is passed against a dead person andtherefore, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per Contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. After the passing of the Assessment Order, the Assessee challenged the same before the Ld. CIT(A) and during the pendency of the first Appeal, the Assessee is reported to have died on 18.01.2021; however, the order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the name of dead person. It is well-settled law that an order passed against a dead person is nullity.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and

ITA No.2393/Kol/2025 Rinku Banerji, Legal Heir of Late Pratip Banerji; A.Y: 2017-18 remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Legal Heir of the Assessee to amend Form No. 35 by incorporating the name of the Legal Heir and further direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the first Appeal afresh after hearing the Legal Heir of the Assessee.

Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Legal Heir of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 23.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23.07.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

RINKU BANERJI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE PRATIP BANERJI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA

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