TARUN VINOD AMBAWAT LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VINODKUMAR GHISULAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-CIT(A), has erred in upholding the initiation of assessment under 147 instead of section 153C of the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing officer of initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 merely on surmises and conjectures without being in possession of any tangible material. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-CIT(A), has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing

Tarun Vinod Ambawat ITA No. 2312/M/2026 (AY: 2012-13) Officer of issuing notice u/s 148 on borrowed satisfaction merely on the basis of information received from DGIT-2(Inv), Mumbai without any independent application of mind. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-CIT(A), has erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings which was initiated with a mechanical and invalid sanction granted u/s 151. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-CIT(A), has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of completing the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147, without providing the material or information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violatingthe law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of KishanchandChellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.). 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-CIT(A), has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.1,01,05,378/ to the income of the appellant under section 68 as unexplained cash credit of the Act even after providing all requisite explanations and evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions undertaken. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (A) has erred in not allowing exemption u/s. 10(38) in respect of longterm capital gains arising on transfer of STT paid equity shares on recognized stock exchange of Rs. 80,61,325/-. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (A), has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.3,03,161/-(being 3% of Trade Value of Rs. 1,01,05,378) to the income of the appellant under section 69C of the Act as unexplained cash expenditure even after providing all requisite explanations and evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions undertaken. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

Tarun Vinod Ambawat ITA No. 2312/M/2026 (AY: 2012-13) “In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee, thereby rendering the impugned assessment order void-ab-initio, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.” 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee has raised additional ground of appeal which was also raised before ld. CIT(A) by way of additional ground of appeal. However, the same was not adjudicated upon by ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee carried us through paper book filed by him wherein similar additional ground of appeal was raised before ld. CIT(A), copy of acknowledgement of ITBA portal and copy of application for additional ground of appeal is filed at page no. 91 to 93 of paper book. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the additional ground of appeal he has raised specific ground that notice under section 148 was issued in the name of deceased assessee; thereby rendering assessment order on the basis of such notice is void-ab-initio. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that legal heirs of assessee (appellant) raised such objection before Assessing Officer (AO) at the first available opportunity i.e. in response to notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2019 that assessee has already expired on 06.10.2016. No fresh notice under section 148 was issued by AO in the name of legal heirs / appellant. The assessment completed in pursuant of notice against dead person is invalid is being void-ab-initio. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs ACIT (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay HC) 3

Tarun Vinod Ambawat ITA No. 2312/M/2026 (AY: 2012-13)  Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty vs ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka)  Paras Defence and Space Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT W.P. No. 4934 of 2022 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that AO on considering the objection of assessee has taken into account, the death of assessee and assessment was framed against the legal heirs / appellant. To support his submissions, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the decision of Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs ACIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi). 5. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that decision of Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs ACIT (supra) has been considered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in a recent decision relied by him in Paras Defence and Space Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT (supra) and distinguished facts of said case in para 16 of the decision. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the admission of additional ground of appeal. We find that no additional fact is to be brought on record for considering the additional ground of appeal. Facts relating to adjudication of additional ground of appeal are emanating from the record of lower authorities. Moreover, similar ground of appeal was raised before ld. CIT(A), which has not been adjudicated by him. Hence, additional ground of appeal is admitted for adjudication. Now, adverting to adjudicating of additional ground of appeal.

Tarun Vinod Ambawat ITA No. 2312/M/2026 (AY: 2012-13) 7. We find that in response to notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2019, the appellant raised objection vide letter dated 14.06.2019 wherein it was informed that assessee has expired on 06.10.2016 and the notice under section 148 is bad in law as the same cannot be issued against the dead person. We find that such fact is duly acknowledged by AO in his order / letter dated 25.06.2019, copy of which available at page no. 13 & 14 of paper book. The AO while disposing of objection of assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP which was affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7409/2018 dated 02.02.2018. 8. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs ACIT (supra) while considering the similar question of law held “that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for 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 notice to a dead person 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

Tarun Vinod Ambawat ITA No. 2312/M/2026 (AY: 2012-13) 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 2928 of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, both the impugned notice dated 29.3.2018 and the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 are quashed and set aside. It is made clear that this order will not prohibit the Revenue from issuing a fresh notice for reassessment, if requirement of Sections 147/148 of the Act are satisfied including the limitation period therein”. 9. We also find that Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty vs ACIT (Supra) while considering question of law “whether notice issued to deceased assessee within time prescribed could save assessment order passed in the name of legal representative who are the petitioners before High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that notice under section 148 from its inception against the dead person is invalid. We find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in recent decision in Paras Defence and Space Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT (supra) after considering the decision of Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs ACIT (supra) that issuing notice and passing order against the non-existing entity cannot be cured by taking recourse of provision of section 292B. Thus, respectfully following the order of Jurisdictional High Court that when notice itself is issued in the name of non-existing person / deceased assessee, the notice itself is invalid and

Tarun Vinod Ambawat ITA No. 2312/M/2026 (AY: 2012-13) subsequent action initiated thereon have become void-ab-initio. In the result, additional ground of appeal is allowed. 10. Considering the fact that we have allowed the additional ground of appeal which is purely legal in nature, therefore, adjudication on various other grounds of appeal have become academic. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 25/06/2026.

/- Sd/- S/- Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 25/06/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai