DIMPLE VIJAY NENSEE, LEGAL HEIR OF VIJAY RAYCHAND NENSEE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, THANE (W)

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -, Pune [in short Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (in short AY) 2024 –25, raising following grounds:

Dimple Vijay Nensee 2 ITA No. 2659/MUM/2026

i. The Assessment Order and the Impugned Appellate Order are Bad in Law. a. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in framing the assessment in the name of the legal heir while continuing to proceed under the PAN of the deceased original assessee, despite being duly informed of the demise of the assessee. The assessment so framed is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act, as proceedings against a deceased person are void ab initio and any order not passed strictly in accordance with Section 159 of the Act is invalid in law. The assessment order therefore deserves to be quashed as bad in law. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts in upholding and passing the impugned appellate order in the name of the legal heir while continuing to retain and proceed under the PAN of the deceased original assessee, despite the admitted fact of the assessee's death. The appellate order, being founded upon an invalid assessment and not passed in conformity with Section 159 of the Act, is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore liable to be quashed.

ii. Addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. a. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of unexplained money. The appellant contends that the source of the cash found is duly explained. b. The appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, assessing the total income at Rs. 14,21,870/- instead of the returned income of Rs. 9,71,870/. The appellant submits that the impugned action is arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside. c. The appellant contends that addition on account of unexplained money is against the provisions of the law and against the principle of natural justice and needs to be deleted.

Dimple Vijay Nensee 3 ITA No. 2659/MUM/2026

iii. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. a. The Learned assessing officer has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same needs to be deleted. iv. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act. a. The Learned assessing officer has erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same needs to be deleted. v. Right to Amend Grounds of Appeal a. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. At the very threshold, we find that the impugned appellate order suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional infirmity going to the very root of the matter.The record reveals that the original assessee, Late Shri Vijay Raychand Nensee, had expired prior to the passing of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment, had described the assessee as "Late Vijay Raychand Nensee through Legal Heir Ms. Dimple Raychand Nensee", albeit under the PAN of the deceased assessee.

2.1 However, while disposing of the first appeal, the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in the name of "Dimple Vijay Nensee" in her individual capacity, without describing or recognising her status as the legal heir or legal representative of the deceased assessee. At the same time, the PAN reflected in the appellate order continues to be that of the deceased assessee.Thus,

Dimple Vijay Nensee 4 ITA No. 2659/MUM/2026

the appellate order neither stands in the name of the deceased assessee represented through his legal representative nor in the capacity contemplated under section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act). The legal representative has not been described in the representative capacity in which alone proceedings could lawfully continue after the death of the original assessee.

2.2 It is well settled that where proceedings are required to continue against the legal representative of a deceased assessee, every consequential order must correctly describe the person in such representative capacity in conformity with the mandate of section 159 of the Act. An order passed on an incorrect or non- existent entity cannot be sustained merely because the PAN of the deceased assessee has been mentioned therein. Jurisdiction cannot be founded upon an incorrect description of the person against whom the appellate order is made. In the present case, the impugned order has admittedly not been passed upon the correct juridical entity. Such a defect strikes at the validity of the appellate proceedings themselves and renders the impugned order legally unsustainable.

2.3 In view of the aforesaid legal infirmity, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned appellate order without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions challenged before us. The matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to

Dimple Vijay Nensee 5 ITA No. 2659/MUM/2026

dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with law after correctly impleading the legal representative of the deceased assessee in terms of section 159 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) shall issue fresh notice of hearing to the legal heir in her representative capacity, afford adequate opportunity of being heard, consider the submissions and evidence that may be placed on record, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

2.4 Since the impugned order itself is being set aside on the aforesaid preliminary ground, all other grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions and levy of interest are left open and require no adjudication at this stage.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 09/07/2026 Z.U., P.S.

Dimple Vijay Nensee 6 ITA No. 2659/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai