ITO, ANNEXE BUILDING vs. GAUTHAM CHAND JAIN, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2817/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2026AY 2016-175 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without substituting the legal representative is bad in law and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order and the subsequent appeal arising from it lack legal sanctity.

What were the facts?

The assessment order for AY 2016-17 was passed in the name of a deceased assessee without substituting the legal heir. The legal heir had informed the department about the demise and provided the death certificate. The First Appellate Authority also passed its order in the name of the deceased assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased assessee without legal substitution is valid. The validity of an appeal arising from such an assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 14.05.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.

- 2 - ITA No.2817/CHNY/2025 Late Gautham Chand Jain 2. There is a delay of 43 days in filing this appeal. The concerned Assessing Officer has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and prayed for the condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the condonation petition, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for late filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the Department. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that assessment has been framed in the name of deceased assessee without substituting the name of the legal representative of the deceased. For the assessment year 2016-17, the late assessee had filed his return of income on 21.06.2016. The assessee had expired on 22.07.2016. Copy of the death certificate is placed on record at page 2 of the paper-book submitted by the assessee. After the death of the assessee, his son Shri Vinoth Kumar. G registered on the Income-tax portal as legal representative and filed the final return on behalf of the deceased assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 on 28.07.2017 (Acknowledgment No.958292020280717).

- 3 - ITA No.2817/CHNY/2025 Late Gautham Chand Jain 4. For the assessment year 2016-17, a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2018. In response, the legal representative of the deceased assessee submitted reply on 10.09.2018 informing the Department about the demise of the assessee and also furnished a copy of the death certificate along with other documents through online portal. Copy of reply submitted by the legal representative on 10.09.2018 is placed on record at pages 7 to 9 of the paper-book filed by the assessee. Thereafter, notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act was replied by the legal representative. However assessment order was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee.

5.

Against the said assessment order passed on 29.12.2018, the legal representative of the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA passed the impugned order on 09.06.2025 deleting the addition made by the AO. However, the FAA has also passed the said order in the name of the deceased assessee.

6.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 43 days.

- 4 - ITA No.2817/CHNY/2025 Late Gautham Chand Jain 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material of record. The assessment order has been passed on the deceased person without substituting the name of the legal representative of the deceased assessee, hence, the very assessment order is bad in law and same needs to be quashed in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that when the assessment order is passed in the name of the non- existing entity, the same is without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. Therefore, when the assessment order has been completed in the name of deceased assessee, the appeal arising from the same does not have any legal sanctity. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 14th May, 2026

- 5 - ITA No.2817/CHNY/2025 Late Gautham Chand Jain RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.05.15 17:32:29 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →