BHAVESH NANALAL DOSHI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE NANALAL CHATURBHUJ DOSHI),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(2)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2023 is bad in law and ab initio void inasmuch as: i. the said notice is issued in the name of the deceased persons, and therefore, non est in law; ii. the said notice having been issued on 01.04.2023, is barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(b); iii. the said notice is issued by obtaining prior approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax instead of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax/Chief Commissioner of Income-tax as required under Section 151; iv. the said notice ought to have been issued by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ('FAO) instead of Income Tax Officer, Ward- 27(2)(1), Mumbai ('JAO); the said notice is issued without following the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 148A; and vi. the said notice is issued without due application of mind inasmuch as the contents of the notice are irrelevant and/or factually incorrect. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the assessment order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2024 be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144 dated 29.03.2024 is illegal as the same is passed in the name of the deceased person. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the said order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144 be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144 dated 29.03.2024 is bad in law as the same is passed without obtaining prior approval of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax as prescribed u/s. 148B of the Act. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the said order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144 be quashed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the assessment order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144 dated 29.03.2024 is bad in law as the same was passed by the JAO instead of FAO u/s. 144B of the Act. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the assessment order being bad in law be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 10,80,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s. 68

We note that assessment has been completed in the name of deceased person which was informed to the ld. Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings. Also, ld. Counsel submitted that the notice u/s. 148 issued for initiating the reopening proceedings was in the name of deceased person. Ld. Assessing Officer in para-2 of his order records the fact of legal heir which demonstrates that he was in the knowledge of assessee having deceased. Despite this factual position in the knowhow of the ld. Assessing Officer, he passed the impugned re-assessment order in the name of deceased person and not the legal heir.

With the above stated facts not in dispute, the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proceedings initiated in the name of a non-existent entity are a nullity and not

Before us, it is evident from the impugned assessment order that ld. Assessing Officer is in the knowledge of legal heir of the assessee, fact of which is already noted in the impugned assessment order. Thus, in the given set of facts, following the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) and that of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Devendra vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (supra), we hold that the impugned reassessment order passed in the name of deceased assessee is bad in law and therefore, quashed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.