MINAL KRISHNA BHOSKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 258/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 May 2026AY 2013-20148 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and void ab initio. Consequently, the order passed by the CIT(A) based on such an assessment order is unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer reopened the assessment of a deceased individual and made an addition for unexplained investment. The assessee's legal heir argued that the assessment order was void ab initio as it was passed in the name of a deceased person.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio and whether the addition made under Section 69 is valid in such circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 159(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Alok A. Bhagar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.02.2026Pronounced: 11.05.2026

PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 04/02/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) of the Act dated 28.09.2021 by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (AY).

2.

The effective issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is whether Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 58,75,000/- made by the Ld. AO under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment, and further, when the assessment order itself is liable to be quashed as void ab initio at the basic onset for having been passed in the name of a deceased person.

3.

In this case, assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Based on the information available with the Department, Ld. AO noticed that assessee had deposited Rs. 58,75,000/- on various dates for wealth management scheme of M/s. Wasankar Group during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to the A.Y. 2013-14. In response to the notice issued u/s. 148, no compliance has been made. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) were issued, in response to which assessee’s daughter uploaded death certificate of assessee on ITBA portal, which showed that assessee has expired on

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) 13.02.2021, but no documentary evidence in support of source of investment was produced. Again, another notice u/s. 142(1) was issued, but of no avail. Therefore, Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act making addition of Rs. 58,75,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved with the above addition, Legal Heir of assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) LR of the assessee submitted that assessee was a housewife having no source of income of her own and the investment made by assessee’s spouse Mr. Krishna Govindrao Bhoskar, out of his salary and retirement benefits. The explanation submitted by the LR of the assessee did not find favour with the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO holding that “appellant is unable to substantiate her claims and is not able to controvert the assessment order”.

5.

Assailing the order of Ld. CIT(A), LR of the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the addition made u/s. 69 of the Act and also the validity of assessment order passed

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) in the name of a deceased person. Learned counsel for the assessee mainly stressed the issue of validity of assessment order and submitted that original assessment order has been framed in the name of a deceased person. It is well established law that no assessment order can be framed in the name of a deceased person without bringing legal heirs of such person, hence, the assessment is void ab initio. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Pranav Gupta LH of late Vijay Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 2192/DEL/2023, dated 20.06.2025. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and requested for dismissal of present appeal. He further submitted that Ld. AO has duly followed the procedure u/s. 159(3) of the Act, however, due to constrained functionalities of the ITBA system, the order came to be passed in the name of the deceased person.

7.

We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. First we deal with

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) the issue of validity of assessment order. It is an undisputed fact that assessment order has been passed in the name of a deceased person. Such an order is a nullity in the eyes of law and is void ab initio, being in clear violation of the provisions of the Act. This fundamental jurisdictional defect renders the assessment order unsustainable. The same issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate bench of ITAT, Rajkot in the case of Late Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani vs. PCIT in ITA No. 138/RJT/2017, dated 15.02.2024, which was recently followed by this very self same Constitution Bench of this Tribunal in Late Jankidevi Nandlal Jaiswal through LR Amit Mohanlal Jaiswal.vs. ITO in ITA No. 238/NAG/2024, dated 27.03.2026. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Rajkot in Late Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani’ case (supra) held as under:-

“8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, we observe that the assessee had expired on 15.10.2013, while the assessment order was passed on 16.02.2015 in the name of the assessee. Therefore, evidently at the time when the assessment order was framed, the assessee had since expired.

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) 9. This, therefore leads us to the question that whether the legal heir of the deceased person is under legal obligation to inform the Tax Department about the demise of the assessee. Further, in absence of any specific intimation on part of the legal heirs of the assessee to the Department, can it be held that the assessment order passed in the nature of the deceased person is valid in the eyes of law. In the case of Savita Kapila v. ACIT 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi), the High Court held that in absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum of death of assessee to Department and, thus, where Assessing Officer issued a notice to assessee under Section 148 after his death and, in such a case, it could not have been validly served upon assessee, said notice being invalid, was to be quashed.

10.

Accordingly, in absence of any specific statutory provision under the Income Tax law which requires the legal heirs to intimate the Income Tax Department about the death of the assessee, we are of the view that the assessment order cannot be to be held to be valid in the eyes of law only for the reason that the legal heirs of the deceased assessee has not, informed the Income Tax Department about the death of the assessee. Further, it is a well established law that no assessment can be framed in the name of a person who has since expired. Any assessment order framed in the name of a deceased person without bringing the legal y-heirs of such person on record, is invalid in the eyes of law. In the case of Pravinchandra A Shah 154 taxmann.com 616 (Gujarat), the High Court held that reopening notice under section 148 issued upon deceased assessee was a nullity, therefore, consequential proceedings and orders passed thereon were to be quashed and set aside. Further, the following decisions also support the above proposition of law:

➢ Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613 (SC); ➢ Krishnaawatar Kabra v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat);

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) ➢ Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi); ➢ Sandeep Chopra v. Pr. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 225/292 Taxman 269 (Jharkhand); ➢ SavitaKapila v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 118 taxmnann.com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502 (Delhi); 11. Accordingly, in light of the above Rulings, we are of the considered view that the order passed under section 263 of the Act is not valid in the eyes of law, since the original assessment order having been framed in the name of a deceased person is not valid in the eyes of law, and therefore the same cannot be revised by taking recourse to 263 proceedings. In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside.”

8.

Respectfully relying on the above decision, we hold that assessment order is unsustainable. In the absence of valid foundation, the superstructure is bound to crumble being emboldened by the well-known legal maxim Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus. Consequently, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is based on a non est assessment order, have no legal basis and is fit to be jettisoned. As we have already decided the issue on validity of assessment order, no adjudication is required on merits of the case. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

ITA No. 258/NAG/2025 (Minal Krishna Bhoskar) 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 11.05.2026 under Rule 34 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) rules 1963

sd/- sd/- PAWAN SINGH KHETTRA MOHAN ROY JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Nagpur: Dated: 11/05/2026

vr/-

Copy to:

1.

The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order

Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →