INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2)(5), ETAWAH vs. ALPNA SRIVASTAVA (LATE. RAVINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, ETAWAH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 600/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO-2(2)(5), Etawah- Vs. Alpna Srivastava (Late. Ravindra 206001 Kumar Srivastava), 26, Katra Bal Singh, Near Ladaiti Bhawan, Etawah-206001 PAN : ASTPS4967P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, PCIT DR Date of hearing 19.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.04.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant revenue against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2017- 18/10263222 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee’s appeal. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the legal heir Alpna Srivastava for the deceased assessee Late. Shri Ravindra Kumar Srivastava. According

ITA No.600/Agr/2025

to the facts of this case, the assessee is a non-filer. Subsequently, the assessing officer has received information that the appellant had cash withdrawals of Rs. 2,94,10,555/-, received interest of Rs. 4,41,816/- and sold immovable property for Rs. 2,30,40,000/-. The assessee’s case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2022, requiring assessee to file return of income within 30 days. Assessee did not comply with the terms of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Appellant also failed to respond to notice u/s. 142(1) and the show cause notice. The assessing officer, thus, completed the assessment order and added the cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,94,10,555/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, interest of Rs. 4,41,816/- and treated sale of immovable property for Rs. 2,30,40,000/- as income from capital gain. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), denying its liability under assessment order dated 23.03.2023 in terms of notice dated 25.03.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act, submitting that the deceased assessee died on 19.09.2019 i.e. prior to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Ld CIT(A), relied on Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. ITO 2019(1) TMI 353 (Guj-H.C) etc., wherein Hon’ble Gujarat high Court has held that a notice issued u/s. 148 against the dead person/deceased assessee is invalid. Ld CIT(A), thus, held notice u/s. 148 and assessment framed

2 | P a g e

ITA No.600/Agr/2025

consequent to such notice, as invalid and allowed assessee’s appeal on this count. 4. Appellant revenue has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 on the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in quashing the assessment order dated 23.03.2023 as void-ab- initio, failing to appreciate that the liability of a deceased person is continued through their legal representatives under Section 159 of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the issuance of notice in the name of the deceased was a 'mistake, defect, or omission’ within the meaning of Section 292B, which does not render the proceeding invalid if the notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act.” 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not applying the provisions of Section 292BB, as the legal representative of the deceased assessee had actively participated in the assessment proceedings and cooperated with the Department, thereby waiving the right to challenge the validity of the service of notice.” 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Revenue had no prior official intimation of the death of the assessee at the time the notice under Section 148 was generated, and therefore, the Assessing Officer acted in good faith based on the records available in the system.” 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the entire assessment on a technicality without adjudicating on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding the unexplained income/escaped assessment for AY 2018-19. 6. ………………………” 5. We have perused the records and heard ld PCIT(DR) for the appellant revenue and ld representative for the respondent assessee. 6. Ld CIT DR for the appellant revenue has submitted that ld CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order by ignoring the fact that the liability of the deceased person is continued through his legal representative u/s. 159 of the Act, the issuance of notice in the name of deceased was a mistake 3 | P a g e

ITA No.600/Agr/2025

curable u/s. 292B r.w.s 292BB of the Act, the legal representative of the deceased had actively participated in the proceedings and the revenue had no prior information in respect of the death of the deceased. Prays to allow revenue’s appeal. 7. Ld representative for the respondent assessee has submitted that the reassessment proceedings against the assessee was initiated by issuance of notice u/s. 148 dated 25.03.2022 after the death of the assessee late Shri. Ravindra Kumar Srivastava on 19.09.2019, hence assessment framed consequent to notice u/s. 148 is invalid. Prayed to dismiss revenue’s appeal. Ld AR has referred following case law in support of his arguments: (i) Savita Kapila v. ACIT, (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Del-H.C). (ii) Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO, (2018) 95 taxmann.com 155 (Mad-H.C). (iii) Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara (Legal Heir) v. PCIT, (2021) 129 taxmann.com 121(Del-H.C). (iv) Durlabhai Kanubhai Rajpara v. ITO, [2020] 114 taxman.com 481. (v) Dharamraj Tanwar v. ITO, [2022] (1) TMI 844 (Del-H.C). (vi) CIT Vs M. Hemanathan, [2016] 68 taxman.com 22 (Mad-H.C). (vii) Rajendra Kumar Sehgal v. ITO, 2018 (12) TMI 697 (Del-H.C).

4 | P a g e

ITA No.600/Agr/2025

ITA No.600/Agr/2025

is null and void and all consequent proceedings/orders including the assessment order and notices being equally tainted, are liable to be set aside. 13. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Durlabhai Kanubhai Rajpara v. ITO [2020] 114 taxman.com 481, vide order dated 26.03.2019, held that no valid notice u/.s 148 of the Act could be issued against a dead person. SLP filed against this order was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2019 passed in ITO v. Durlabhai Kanubhai Rajpara, (2020) 114 taxmann.com 482 (SC). 14. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Dharamraj Tanwar v. ITO [2022] 441 ITR 462(Del-H.C), held that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued against a dead person, the same is null and void and all consequent proceedings/order including the assessment order and the subsequent notices equally tainted are liable to be set aside. 15. Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. M. Hemanathan, (2016) 68 taxman.com 22 (Mad-H.C), held that any proceeding initiated against a dead person is a nullity. Section 292BB would apply only to two types of proceedings (i) namely proceedings, in which, the assessee had appeared and (ii) any inquiry, in which, the assessee has cooperated. 16. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Del-H.C), Rajendra Kumar Sehgal v. ITO, observed that the revenue’s argument that the 6 | P a g e

ITA No.600/Agr/2025

‘defect was curable’, in regard to the issuance of notice, to a deceased individual, is in the opinion of this court, untenable.

Dated: 21. 04.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

7 | P a g e