LILA DEVI L/H LATE SHRI CHHAGAN LAL,BLAOTRA vs. ITO , BALOTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1168/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an assessment or reassessment notice issued and finalized in the name of a dead person is void ab initio and a fundamental jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured under Sections 292B or 292BB of the Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored the material fact that the assessee had expired on November 17, 2020, and the first notice under Section 148 was issued on March 31, 2021, after the assessee's death. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the established legal position and the judicial precedents cited by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal by suggesting a fresh assessment order be passed, which was inappropriate given the fundamental flaw. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders passed against the deceased assessee as invalid and void ab initio. The findings in the lead case (ITA No. 1167/Jodh/2025) were applied mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025. The appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the assessee, Lila Devi (Legal Heir of Late Shri Chhagan Lal), challenge the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Balotra, initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 31, 2021, to the assessee, Late Shri Chhagan Lal. The assessee had allegedly received benefits from transactions in a penny stock company, PRERNA INFRABUILD Ltd. The assessee's legal heir, Smt. Lila Devi, contended that Late Shri Chhagan Lal expired on November 17, 2020, prior to the issuance of the Section 148 notice. Consequently, assessment orders dated March 14-15, 2022, were passed against a deceased person, rendering them void ab initio. The NFAC upheld the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) in the name of a deceased person are legally valid and tenable, considering the notice under Section 148 was issued after the assessee's death? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The assessment orders are void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law because the initial notice under Section 148 was issued to a deceased person. The CIT(A) erred in upholding these orders despite the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, which declare notices and orders passed in the name of a dead person as invalid. The assessee relied on the death certificate and judicial precedents like the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's decision in DB CWP 6489/2022 (Late Shobha Mehta through legal heir vs. ACIT, Udaipur) and a coordinate bench's order in ITA 886-887/Jodh/2025 (Late Shri Banshidhar Lal Meena through LR). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the impugned orders passed by both the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 292B,Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (Through
For Respondent: Smt. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BENCH: SMC BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year – 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18) Lila Devi L/H Late Shri ITO, Balotra Chhagan Lal Rughji Ki Pal, Balotra-344022 PAN No. ACBPL3802E Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (Through V.C.) Revenue by Smt. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR (Through V.C.) Date of Hearing 08 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 27 / 10 / 2026. ORDER PER: SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the separate order dated 26.11.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

2.

The appellant has raised sole and common issue in all these appeals on identical facts related to the legality and validity of the assessment order

2 ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 passed by the Ld. AO in the name of the deceased, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for sake of brevity.

3.

We took the ITA No. 1167/Jodh/2025 as lead case for adjudication of facts of these appeals.

4.

The facts of the case may be briefly narrated as that the assessee furnished the return of income for the relevant assessment years and as per information available, the assessee had received benefits from transactions in the penny stock company, namely PRERNA INFRBUILD Ltd. through accommodation entry and sold the shares of prerna infrabuild Ltd, for considerations, during the period relevant to the assessment year. Pursuance to this information, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021, after recording the reason and obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority Thereafter, the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the appellant on different dates and asking the assessee to provide the information, details, documents etc. alongwith explanation, through

3 ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 documentary evidences and further show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act was issued, as assessee was reported non responsive of earlier notices.

5.

On the basis of facts and circumstances mentioned hereinbefore, the Ld. AO computed the total income of the appellant to Rs. 3,44,660/-, Rs 1,51,570/- and 6,81,506/- respectively. Assessment order was challenged by legal heirs of appellant in which it was stated that the assessee was expired on 17.11.2020, prior to first notice given by the Learned AO and appeal was challenged by the legal heir/wife of the assessee Smt. Lila Devi on 12.04.2022 and assessment orders dated 14-03-2022/15-03-2022were passed against the dead person which has nullity in the eye of law.

6.

Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned the material available on record.

7.

Reiterating the grounds, a Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously upheld the legality and validity of the assessment orders passed by the Learned AO in the name of deceased person as notice dated 31-03-2021 under Section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of dead person and in the situation mentioned hereinbefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

4 ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 to have decided the ground in the light of binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in which held that a notice issued and order passed in the name of dead person is invalid and was deserves to be quashed.

8.

The Ld. DR relied upon the impugned orders passed by both lower authorities.

9.

The Learned AR submitted that during appellate proceeding, the wife of the assessee Smt. Lila Devi furnished the copy of the death certificate of assessee Chhagan Lal and raised legal objection also in the light of established legal position in this behalf but the Learned CIT(A) ignored judicial precedents and dismissed the appeal.

10.

It is established legal position that an assessment or reassessment notice issued and finalized in the name of dead person is void ab initio and having nullity and this is a fundamental jurisdictional defect, which cannot be cured under curative provisions u/s 292B/292BB of the Act.

10A. The Learned AR relied upon order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in DB CWP 6489/2022 Late Shobha Mehta through legal heir versus

5 ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 ACIT, Udaipur, in which held that the reassessment and assessment order passed against dead asessee is invalid and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

11.

Further relied upon the order ITA 886-887/Jodh/2025, Late Shri Banshidhar Lal Meena through LR, passed by coordinate bench of the tribunal, in which held that the issuance of notice to dead person and the consequent assessment order thereto would be without jurisdiction and accordingly liable to quashed as void ab initio

11A. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) quietly ignored the material fact and argument, advanced before him to decide the appeal as the appellant specifically raised the issue that the assessee was expired on 17.11.2020 and first notice was issued on 31.03.2021 after the death of the assessee and as per legal position enumerated above, the notice issued/ the consequent assessment order passed against a dead person is invalid and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

11B. The Ld. CIT(A), not even mentioned that material argument and disposed of appeal by stating that fresh assessment order de novo be

6 ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 passed, as if it was simply ex party order, whereas it was incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to disposed of the appeal in the light of the facts and arguments that assessee has already been expired prior to 31.03.2021 and notice and the consequent assessment order dated 14-03-2022/15-03-2022, was passed against dead person/assessee and in such circumstances the impugned assessment order is invalid and have no value in the eye of law as void ab initio and accordingly deserves to be quashed and we hold so.

11C. The issues raised in ITA No. 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 are similar on identical facts to those discussed in ITA No. 1167/Jodh/2025 and therefore, our observation and findings given in ITA No. 1167/Jodh/2025 shall apply to the appeals in ITA No. 1168 to 1169/Jodh/2025 in mutatis mutandis, ordered accordingly.

12.

Consequently, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

7 ITA No. 1167, 1168 and 1169/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Dated : 27/10/ 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS True Copy

Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 10:42:47 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →