INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD DAGADU MORE, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7296/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2026AY 2016-1714 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 a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is without jurisdiction and consequently, the reassessment order is bad in law. The appellate order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer issued a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a deceased assessee. The legal heir had previously informed the department about the assessee's death. The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order, holding the notice void ab initio.

What were the issues?

Whether a reassessment notice issued to a deceased person is void ab initio and whether such a defect can be cured by subsequent participation of legal heirs or provisions like Section 292B/292BB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 292B,Section 292BB,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri TanmayPadhke
For Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani – CIT DR &, Shri V. S. Mahajan, - Sr. DR
Hearing: 05/05/2026Pronounced: 14/05/2026

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity “the Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 25.09.2025. The

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai [for brevity, the “Ld. AO”], order passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 29.03.2024.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed by issuing notice under section 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR challenged that the Ld. AO issued the notice on the deceased person. As the assessee was diedon 18.11.2016 and the notice was duly issued to the said deceased person. So the notice was served in the name of deceased person is illegal. So, the assessment is liable to be quashed. The issue was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s claim and quashed the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us.

3.

The Ld. DR argued that there is no information before the Ld. AO about the death of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and stated that the impugned assessment order cannot be quashed on the basis of the notice served in the name of dead person. In fact the assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO inserting the legal heir of the assessee. Following the argument, the Ld. DR filed the factual report of Ld. ITO- 28(3)(1), Mumbai. Relevant part of the said report in para no. 2.3 to 4 is reproduced as below:

“2.3. The Ld. CIT (A) has quashed the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2024 as being without jurisdiction and has held as under: (i) Notices u/s 148A (b), 148A (d), and 148 issued in the name of Late Smt. Ms. Varsha More are void ab initio. 2

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More (ii) Such defect is not curable under section 292B nor by subsequent substitution of legal heirs u/s 159. (iii) Further, the notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless unit, contrary to section 151A and CBDT Notifications.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai vide ITA No. 7296/Mum/2025. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee has filed certain details and additional grounds The additional ground raised by the assessee mainly pertains to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the deceased person and therefore, the assessee has requested to treat the notice as void ab initio. 3. In this case, it is noted that notice u/s 148A (b) and notice u/s 148 was issued in the name of Ms. Varsha More on 17.02.2023 and 25.03.2023 respectively as the legal heir of the assessee had submitted no information with the Income Tax Department that the assessee Varsha More is a deceased individual. The said information was not submitted even during the course of proceedings initiated u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The department came to know about the demise of the assessee Varsha More only when return was filed by the legal heir of Ms. Varsha More in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, subsequent proceedings and assessment order was completed in the name of legal heir Further, the assessee has never raised this issue during the assessment proceedings. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable on merit as the legal heir of assessee failed to inform the department about the demise of Ms. Varsha Pramod More 4. With regard to the submission of the assessee on the ground that the notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless unit, contrary to section 151A and CBDT Notifications, it is noted that the Revenue has filed SLP on this ground in the case of M/s Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and the matter is pending for adjudication. Hence, in order to maintain consistency in stand taken by the Revenue, with due respect to the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the submission of the assessee is not acceptable on this ground. Hence, the Hon'ble ITAT may be requested to decide the matter on merit of the case.”

4.

The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 21 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR stated that the notice was duly issued dated 25.03.2023 in the name of deceased assessee. The Ld. AR submitted the death certificate which is annexed in APB page 19. The Ld. AO invited our attention to notice issued by the Ld. AO under section 148 3

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More which is annexed in APB page 6. The said notice is reproduced as below:

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More 5. The Ld. AR advanced his argument and contended that the information about the death of the assessee was duly submitted to the Ld. AO by a letter dated 22.04.2018 which was duly submitted in the office of the Ld. AO on 22.04.2018. The said letter is annexed in APB page 17 and reproduced as below:

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More 6. The Ld. AR further argued that a prosecution proceeding was initiated against the deceased assessee and on that basis the assessee informed to the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-28, Mumbai about the death of the assessee. The said letter is annexed in APB page 20 and the relevant paragraphs of the said letter is reproduced as below:

“In response to your above cited notice in the case of Late Varsha Pramod More, I, Pramod D. More, Husband of Late Varsha Pramod More, wish to state as follows: 1. My wife Smt. Varsha Pramod More expired on 18-11-2016. Photocopy of the death certificate is attached hereto for your ready reference and records. 2. Smt. Varsha More had filed here return for AY 2014-15 on 31- 03-2015 and has also paid the Self Assessment Tax of Rs. 5,29,150/-on 02-04-2016 vide CIN 03502180204201600694 at Corporation Bank, Vashi. The copy of the challan is attached hereto for your ready reference and records. 3. From the above facts it is clear that the assessee has duly filed her return of income and has duly paid the requisite taxes also. Thus, there is no willful attempt to evade the payment of any taxes, interest under the act. Considering the above facts may I request your Honor to kindly drop the prosecution proceedings and oblige? Kindly acknowledge the same and oblige.” 7. The Ld. AR further contended that the issuance of notice in the name of dead person is illegal and void. The identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Devendra vs. Additional/JCIT reported in (2023) 153 taxmann.com 520 (Bombay). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Court cited in paragraph no. 14 to paragraph no. 24 is reproduced as below:

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More “14. Another contention of the respondents is that as the petitioner has responded the notice and participated the proceeding, section 292 BB comes in picture and the notice issued against dead person cannot be a nullity. Section 292 BB reads thus:

"292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances. Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co- operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act that the notice was -

(a) not served upon him; or

(b) not served upon him in time; or

(c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment."

14.

A cursory look at section 292BB would show that the same would apply only to two types of proceedings namely (1) proceedings, in which, the assessee had appeared and (ii) any inquiry, in which, the assessee had cooperated.

15.

In the case on hand, the assessee was dead. It was the assessee's son, who appeared and perhaps cooperated. Therefore, the primary condition for the invocation of section 292BB is absent in the case on hand.

16.

Section 292BB is in place to take care of contingencies where an assessee is put on notice of the initiationof proceedings, but who takes advantage of defective notices or defective service of notice on him. It is trite to point out that the purpose of issue of notice is to make the notice aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of section 292BB. It cannot be invoked in cases where the very initiation of proceedings is against a dead person.’ 7

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. M.Hemanathan (2016) 68 taxmann.com 22/239 Taxman 533/384 ITR 177/95 CCH 0132 ChenHC] where in is has observed as under:

"30. A Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (VRSJ) was a party, had pointed out in Gopalakrishnan G.S. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2006 (4) CTC 757], that a distinction has always to be maintained between judicial/quasi judicial proceedings and other proceedings. In Savithriammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [2006 (3) MLJ 389], a Division Bench of this Court had categorically pointed out that the notification issued in the name of a dead person is a nullity. In Smt.Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC 521], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had carved out an exception.

31.

The case on hand will not fall under the said exception. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings against the dead person and the continuation of the same despite having noticed the factum of death of theassessee, cannot be approved."

16.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of JaydeepkumarDhirajlal Thakkar v. ITO [2018] 401 ITR 302/101 CCH 0085 (Guj.).

"In the context of section 292BB of the Act, has held that the same would apply only to two types of proceedings namely

(i) proceedings, in which, the assessee had appeared; and

(ii) any inquiry, in which, the assessee had cooperated."

17.

The issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is issued in the name of dead person said Shri VasudeoJambhulkar is enforceable in law. The fact that Shri VasudeoJambhulkar died on 8-7-2020 is not disputed. The notice issued in the name of the dead person is unenforceable in the eye of law.

18.

The respondents seek to justify their stand by contending that they were not intimated about the death of the assessee. The legal heirs did not take any steps to cancel the PAN registration in the name of assessee.

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More 19. It has observed by the Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502/108 CCH 0049 Del HC] as under:

"In the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the income tax department"

"Consequently, the legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the revenue.

20.

While informing on mail, the petitioner has mentioned that the legal heirs of the assessee submits the documents which proves that it was sufficient for the respondents to know that the assessee is no more and the legal heirs are submitting the documents. Legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the department. It is also observed by the Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila (supra) as under:

"32. This Court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the income tax department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased assessee or the deceased assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether PAN record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant."

21.

The Madras High Court in AlameluVeerappan v. ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72/102 CCH 0118 ChenHC] has observed as under:

“Nothing has been placed before this Court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee to immediately intimate the death assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration."

22.

The High Court of Mumbai in SumitBalkrishna Gupta v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 188/262 Taxman 61/414 ITR 292/104 CCH 0379 MumHC] has observed as under:

"7. The issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead is not a merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. Thus, a notice which has been issued in the name of the dead person is also not protected either by provisions of section 292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This is evident from section 148 of the Act, which requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment, a notice must be served upon the assessee. The assessee on whom the notice must be sent must be a living person i.e. legal heir of the deceased assessee, for the same to be responded. This in fact is the intent and purpose of the Act. Therefore, section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement."

23.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment in the case of Dharamraj v. ITO [2022] 113 CCH 0096 DelHC].

24.

The Principal Seat of this Court has recently passed the order in DhirendraBhupendraSanghvi v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 541/[Writ Petition No. 10163 of 2022, dated 27-6-2023] and has observed that the notice issued on dead persons is null and void.”

8.

He further respectfully relied on the order of coordinate bench by ITAT Mumbai in the case of Abbas Khan (through legal heir Mr. Iqbal Khan) v. NFAC, ITA No. 80/MUM/2025, date of pronouncement 21.05.2025. Relevant para no. 7 of the said order is reproduced as below:

“7. In our considered opinion, the adjudication of the additional ground concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, reveals that the said notice was issued in the name of a deceased person and is therefore null and void in law, and liable to be quashed. In this regard, we respectfully rely on the decision of Gene Gracious (supra). We find that, in light of the 10

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam A Dhanani (supra) and the jurisdictional High Court, there is no option but to quash the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, which has been rendered without legal authority. Consequently, the addition of Rs.42,22,616/- made in the assessment is also liable to be deleted. Since the legal issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, the remaining grounds raised in the appeal are rendered academic in nature and require no adjudication.”

9.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. The assessee’s case was reopened under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee expired on 18.11.2016. The legal heir of the assessee had duly informed the Ld. Income Tax Officer-28(3)(1), Mumbai vide letter dated 18.12.2018 and also informed the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vide letter dated 17.12.2018 regarding the death of the assessee. However, the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee on 25.03.2023. The Ld. DR raised an objection that the death of the assessee was not properly intimated to the Department by the legal heir of the assessee. However, from the factual matrix, we find that the legal heir had taken steps on two occasions to inform the Department regarding the death of the assessee. We further find that the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order are reproduced below:

“7.3 Legal Position It is settled law that, notice on a dead person is void ab initio. The following case laws have established that.

1.

Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (414 ITR 292, Bom HC) – Notice u/s 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is unenforceable. Participation of legal heirs cannot cure the defect.

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More 2. Savita Kapila v. ACIT (426 ITR 502, Del HC) – There is no statutory obligation on legal heirs to inform the department about the death of an assessee. Notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void. 3. Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO (257 Taxman 72 / 95 taxmann.com 155, Mad HC) – Notice issued in the name of a dead person is a nullity and cannot be validated by invoking section 292B. 4. CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. (247 CTR 500 / 341 ITR 500, Del HC, affirmed by SC in 2018 [7 SCC 346]) – Jurisdictional defect in notice cannot be cured u/s 292B. 5. PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (416 ITR 613, SC) – Jurisdictional notice issued to a non-existent entity is void; subsequent participation does not cure the defect. Though rendered in corporate context, the ratio applies equally to notices on deceased persons.”

We respectfully follow the orders of the Devandra (supra) & Abbas Khan (through legal heir Mr. Iqbal Khan) (supra). In our considered view, the notice issued by the Ld. AO in the name of a deceased person is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the consequential reassessment order is bad in law. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned appellate order and quash the demand raised against the assessee. Since we have adjudicated the legal issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO in favour of the assessee, the other grounds raised are rendered academic and are kept open.

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No. 7296/Mum/2025 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-/- S Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 14 /05/2026 Soumili Das, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI

ITA NO. 7296/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Pramod Dagadu More

Details Date Initials Designation Original dictation pad is enclosed at the Yes front of the file 1 Draft dictated on 12.05.2026 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 13.05.2026 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →