ANSHUMAN SINGH NEHRA L/H AJIT SINGH,DECEASED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 79/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2017-185 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had expired on 02.01.2023, and the show-cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 28.12.2023 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee, late Shri Ajit Singh. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila L/H Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila vs ACIT, the Tribunal ruled that a notice issued under section 148 to an assessee after his death is not valid. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148A(b) to a deceased person was considered invalid. The Tribunal quashed the notice under section 148A(b), the notice under section 148, all consequential proceedings, and the reassessment order. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 9,63,500/- was not decided as the entire proceedings were quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, represented by Anshuman Singh Nehra (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ajit Singh), filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Gurgaon. This order was passed under section 144 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee had expired on 02.01.2023. The first notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 28.12.2023, to the deceased assessee. The assessee was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) during the relevant financial year and no Income Tax Return was filed for AY 2017-18. The appeal challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of the deceased.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.12.2023 issued by the Assessing Officer, Hissar under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the Assessing Officer (International Taxation), Gurgaon, are illegal, bad in law, time-barred, and without jurisdiction, as they were issued in the name of a deceased assessee, turning on Section 148A and Section 147 of the Act. 2. Whether the continuation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act in the name of legal heirs is valid in the absence of a valid service of notice under section 148 within the limitation period, concerning Section 147 of the Act. 3. Whether the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (International Taxation), Gurgaon, pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), are bad in law and void ab initio as they were passed concerning a non-existent person (deceased assessee) under his PAN, relating to the procedural validity of assessment proceedings. 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 9,63,500/- is erroneous, illegal, and bad in law, considering that the entire amount credited to the deceased assessee's savings account from relatives/friends was in the nature of unsecured loans/gifts, and the legal heir had submitted documents amounting to Rs. 40,36,500/- to the satisfaction of the DRP during draft assessment proceedings, concerning the addition of unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued to a deceased person, more than 12 months after his death, rendering it invalid. Reliance was placed on Savita Kapila v. Asstt CIT, Meenu Gupta v. Asstt CIT, Vipin Walia v. ITO, Amit Singh v. ITO, and Veena Rani v. Pr. CIT. - Initiation of proceedings under Section 147 is vitiated due to the invalid notice. - The orders were passed concerning a non-existent person. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned DR relied on the orders of the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144C(3),Section 148A(b),Section 147,Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Raman Tiwari, FCA (VC)
For Respondent: Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT-D.R
Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 79/Del/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Anshuman Singh Nehra Vs. Income Tax Officer (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Ajit (International Taxation) Singh) Gurgaon 421/17, Jaidev Nagar Opp. Beniwal Farm House, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana) PAN No. DBQPS 1635 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Raman Tiwari, FCA (VC) Revenue by Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the assessment order dated 30.10.2025, passed by Income Tax Officer, ITO, International Taxation – Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO), passed under section 144 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) in pursuance of directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (in short ‘ld. DRP') dated 29.09.2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

IT(IT)A No. 79/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] Anshuman Singh Nehra L/h Ajit Singh vs ITO (IT) 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. “That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 28.12.2023 issued by Ld. Assessing Officer, Hissar under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in the name of deceased assessee, and the order dated 30.10.2025 passed under said Section by the Ld. Assessing Officer (International Taxation), Gurgaon are illegal, bad in law, time barred and without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

2.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (International Taxation), Gurgaon has erred in law and on facts by upholding the continuation of proceedings under Section 147 in the name of legal heirs, in absence of a valid service of notice under section 148 within the limitation period.

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (International Taxation), Gurgaon pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Members of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are bad in law and void ab initio as the same have been passed on a non-existent person under his PAN, namely Late Sh. Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Chandu Lal, who expired on 02.01.2023.

4.

That, the Hon'ble Members of Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in law and on facts in not accepting that whole of the amount under consideration credited to saving account of the deceased assessee received from relatives/friends were in the nature of unsecured loans / gifts, as the legal heir has arranged/submitted the documents amounting to Rs. 40,36,500/- to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble Members of DRP during draft assessment proceedings and as such the order of Ld. Assessing Officer (International Taxation) confirming the addition of balance amounting to Rs. 9,63,500/- pursuant to the directions of DRP is erroneous, illegal, and bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

5.

That, all the facts and the material available on record have not been properly considered by the Hon'ble Members of Dispute Resolution Panel while passing the directions to the assessing officer under Section 144C of the Act. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

6.

That, the Hon'ble Members of Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have seen that rejecting the appeal on jurisdictional / technical grounds, Page 2 of 6

IT(IT)A No. 79/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] Anshuman Singh Nehra L/h Ajit Singh vs ITO (IT) the appellant is deprived of substantial justice as the same have been passed by overlooking the submissions and without giving reasons or controverting the basic facts and the law. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add any other ground of appeal which may arise at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the first notice under section 148A(b), was issued to the deceased person. It is submitted that the assessee had expired on 02.01.2023 and the first show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 28.12.2023, after 12 month from the date of the death of the assessee. It is submitted that notice issued on deceased assessee cannot be considered as a valid notice. It is submitted that the said notice was issued through IT Portal and was sent to the assessee by e-mail registered to the profile of the deceased assessee. Even though the facts of his demise have already been duly intimated by the office along with the supporting death certificate as the assessee during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 was a NRI and resident of US. There was no Income-tax return filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. It was vehemently argued that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 is vitiated. The ld AR relied on the following case laws: i) Savita Kapila v. Asstt CIT (Covered Issue), Reported W.P. © 3258/2000 ii) Meenu Gupta v. Asstt CIT (Covered Issue), Reported W.P. 10162/2024 iii) Vipin Walia v. ITO (Covered Issue), Reported W.P. 8273/2015 iv) Amit Singh v. ITO (Covered Issue), Reported ITA 311/Del/2025 v) Veena Rani v. Pr. CIT (Covered Issue), Reported ITA 1504/Del/2023

Page 3 of 6

IT(IT)A No. 79/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] Anshuman Singh Nehra L/h Ajit Singh vs ITO (IT) 4. Per contra, the learned DR relied on the orders of the AO.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee had expired on 02.01.2023. It is also an admitted fact that the show-cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 28.12.2023 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee late Shri Ajit Singh. In such facts and circumstances, the decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila L/H Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila vs ACIT (supra) for the proposition that the notice under section 148 issued to the assessee after his death is not valid, applies with full force. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we hold that the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act on a deceased person cannot be considered as valid. We therefore, quash the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act along with the notice under section 148 as also all consequential proceedings and the reassessment order.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 28.07.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps*

Page 4 of 6

IT(IT)A No. 79/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] Anshuman Singh Nehra L/h Ajit Singh vs ITO (IT)

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →