INCOME TAX OFFICER 22 3 1, MUMBAI vs. YAKUB MOHAMED GHANTIWALA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE YAKUB MOHAMED GHANTIWALA BIBI YAKUB MOHAMED GHAN, JOGESHWARI (WEST)

1. 2. Whether on the facts, and in circumstances of the case and in law, while allowing the assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the material fact that the legal heir never informed the department about the assessee’s death, not even after issuance of the impugned notice in the name of the assessee, nor challenged the validity of the impugned notice before the A.O.

Since the issue is common and facts are similar, both the appeals are clubbed, heard and a common order is passed.

In this case, for both the years, the issue is that the legal representative raised a basic question- whether the notice on a dead person is valid and whether consequential order passed has any legal sanctity. The Ld. AR of appellant has brought it to the notice of first appellate authority that the notice of reassessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on her husband after five years of his death. The Ld. AR of appellant has submitted several cases-law for the proposition that notice on a deceased person is void ab-initio and all the consequential proceedings like making additions raising a tax demand, are invalid. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration all these decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and held that in such circumstances, the issue of reassessment notice is invalid and hence all consequent proceedings are also invalid.

Aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order.

The Ld. DR relied on the grounds of appeal and submitted that the appellant should have intimated the Department that the appellant is no more. As there is no way to the Department to find out whether appellant is alive or not, the Ld. AO is correct in passing the assessment order under section 144 of the Act.

The Ld. AR of the appellant heavily relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and various cases-law.

Heard both sides and perused the detailed written submissions and several cases-law filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant passed away on 12.9.2013, whereas the reassessment

In the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. ACIT, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court held that for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, it should be issued in name of living person, i.e., legal heir of deceased person and section 292B could not be invoked to correct a fundamental/substantial error. The relevant portion is reproduced below :- 7. The issue of a notice U/s 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 not to a dead person is not a merely 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 a dead person is also not protected either by provisions of Section 292B or 292BB of the Act. This is also the 4 Yakub Mohamed Ghantiwala Through Legal Heir of Late Yakub Mohamed Ghantiwala Bibi Yakub Mohamed Ghan

In view of the above decision of jurisdictional decisions of Hon'ble High Court, the notice issued to reopen the assessment and consequential passing of assessment order on a deceased person is invalid and void ab initio.

Both the appeals of Revenue’s are Dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/08/2025.