Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Khimji Karamshi Patel, who ran proprietary businesses, filed his Income Tax Return for AY 2019-20. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessee subsequently died on 02.03.2021. Despite the legal heir, Smt. Raniben Khimji Patel, intimating the death and her status, the AO continued to issue notices and passed the assessment order in the name of the deceased assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order, ruling it a nullity.
Held
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. The tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person, when the death was duly intimated and the legal heir was known, constitutes a fundamental and substantive illegality, not a mere procedural defect. Therefore, such an assessment is not curable under Section 292B and the provisions of Section 159 were not adequately followed as the legal heir was not brought on record.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order passed against a deceased person, despite prior intimation of death and knowledge of the legal heir, is a nullity and constitutes a substantive illegality; and whether such a defect can be cured by Section 292B or validated by Section 159 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250, 142(1), 36(1)(iii), 69C, 143(3), 148, 292B, 159, 292BB, 147, 148A(b), 24B, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC
ACIT-CC-7(3) Vs. RanibenKhimji Patel R. No. 655, (Legal Heir of Shri 6thfloor,Aayakar Bhavan, KhimjiKaramshi M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 Patel), 020 602, 6th floor, Petit Tower, August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Mumbai-400 026 PAN/GIR No. AADPP8816G (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ld. AR Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM:
This appeal by revenue is directed against the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-49, Mumbai (herein after referred as “Ld. CIT(A)” u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) after referred as “the Act”), whereinLd. CIT(A) has set aside the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 on the ground that the assessment order issued against a dead person is a nullity.
The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding before the authorities below are that the assessee was running proprietary concern in the name of M/s Trishul Developers which was into the business of construction and development of residential and commercial properties. In addition, the assessee also used to run a grocery store in the name of M/s RatilalHirji& Co. The assessee filed the return of income on 22.10.2019 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and business loss carried forward of Rs. 62,25,780/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.03.2021 and notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.09.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee electronically, calling on various information and documents. It is alleged that in response to the notices issued, submissions from time to time were uploaded and the details were verified and placed on record wherein addition of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act alongwith addition u/s 69C of the Act were made and demand was raised. The penalty proceedings were also initiated separately. um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the respondent herein who is the wife of deceased assessee as legal heir challenged the order u/s 250 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). It was alleged before the Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned assessment order is nullity and the same has been passed against the deceased person. It was further alleged that the assessee died on 02.03.2021 and the same was intimated to the Ld. AO vide letter dated 15.04.2021 and it was also intimated that Smt. RanibenKhimji Patel, appellant was the legal heir of the deceased assessee as per will of the deceased assessee. It was further stated that after the death of the assessee, the notice pertaining to assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) were sent to the email ID and the income tax portal of the deceased assessee instead of the legal heir i.e. Smt. RanibenKhimji Patel and hence the notices issued after the death of assessee on 02.03.2021 were null and void ab initio. Vide letter dated 15.04.2021, the demise of assessee was intimated to the Ld. AO and also was uploaded on the income tax portal in reply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 12.04.2021 and despite having the knowledge of the death of the assessee, the AO mentioned the notice in the name of the deceased assessee and has passed the assessment order in the name of deceased assessee.
4. It was further brought to the notice by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Hon‟ble High Court of um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) Bombay in the case of the appellant has quashed the notice u/s 148 issued for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 on the ground that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act against the deceased person was void ab initio. After considering the submission of the appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has noticed that the legal heir of the assessee i.e. the present appellant has duly intimated to the AO about the death of the assessee i.e. Late Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel vide letter dated 15.04.2021 and the AO was fully aware of the legal heir of the deceased assessee before passing the assessment order on 26.07.2021 and the assessment order is passed in the name of deceased assessee and not in the name of his legal heir Smt. RanibenKhimji Patel and there is no discussion regarding the demise of the assessee in the assessment order. Before Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has relied on the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in wherein the ITAT has allowed the legal ground raised
by the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) after following the said judgment observed that the impugned order passed by AO was invalid because after the intimation of demise of the deceased assessee and also knowing the legal heir of the assessee prior to the issue of assessment order, the AO ought to have issued the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 in the name of legal heir of the deceased assessee which is not the case here. um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel)
5. Thus aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the present appeal has been filed by the revenue and the appellant has raised the following grounds:-
1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in invalidating the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) without considering the provisions of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly stipulates that no proceeding under the Act shall be invalid merely due to any mistake, defect, or omission in the name, designation, or description of the assessee, or any procedural defect, provided that the substance of the order is valid and no prejudice has been caused to the taxpayer.
2. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to consider that under Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the liability to pay tax passes to the legal heir upon the death of the assessee."
3. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of High Court in the case of Sardar Harvinder Singh Sehgal and Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which emphasized that the intention behind the Income tax Act is to ensure that taxes are assessed correctly, and minor defects or errors in the notice (like incorrect or missing details) would not invalidate the process, provided the substance is intact.
"The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all of the above said grounds of appeal. The appellant reserves its right to file further submission in the appeal."
We have heard the Ld. DR and the Ld. AR and 6. examined the record. Both the parties have filed their um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) written arguments. In the written arguments, Ld. DR has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:- i) That the assessee was alive when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued and for that reasons the addressand name of the assessee KhimjiKarmshi Patel was mentioned. After knowing the demise of the assessee, all the notices and final assessment order was issued mentioning the name as KhimjiKarimshi Patel addressed to the legal heir of KhimjiKarimshi Patel. ii) In response to these notices, legal heir had filed its response on 21.09.2021 and 23.09.2021 stating that she was filing her response as legal heir of Late KhimjiKarimshi Patel. In the letter dated 23.09.2021, it was mentioned that registration of legal heir on departmental portal would be completed only on 18.09.2021 and besides this, she has filed her response on the issues raised therein in the show cause notice. Thus, the legal heir had understood about the scrutiny proceedings going in the case of Late KhimjiKarimshi Patel and has replied to all queries in that respect. iii) That the legal heir has neither objected to the scrutiny proceedings as being carried out in the name of KhimjiKarimshi Patel nor requested to continue the proceedings in name of legal heir. um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) iv) That the case of the appellant is covered by section 292B which ensured that technical pleas on the ground of mistake, defect or omission should not invalidate the assessment proceedings, when no confusion or prejudice is caused due to non-observance of the technical formalities. In the instant case, the legal heir has clearly understood the ongoing proceedings and has cooperated accordingly which shows that there was no confusion or prejudice caused to the assessee. Hence, the order of Ld. CIT(A) needs to be set aside and order of AO needs to be restored. v) Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case ofSmtKaushalyabai Vs CIT 238 ITR 1008 (High Court of MP) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court held that the widow of the deceased has already participated in the proceedings, the defect, if any, stands automatically cured and the issue of notice to a dead person because of the above reasons was not fatal to the revenue. vi) In the case relied by Ld. CIT(A)i.e.Bardi Chand vs. ITO in (supra) various case laws is mentioned which are distinguishable on facts of the cases because the main issue raised in all those cases pertains to the jurisdictional notices u/s 147/148 or 143(2) were issued in the name of deceased person or non-existent entity. In the instant case, the jurisdictional notice u/s um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) 143(2) was issued in the name of assessee when he was alive. Therefore, the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) was in order and valid and for that reason the case relied by Ld. CIT(A) is not applicable. vii) Since the PAN of the deceased assessee was not updated to include the legal heir, the details like name of deceased assesseewas automated while generating any notice or order and therefore the AOhas consciously addressed such notices and order to the legal heir. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to adjudicate the matter on merit. viii) In support of these arguments, Ld. DR relied on the following case laws:- a. Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi).
In this case the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has held that theissue of notice in the name of M/s Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which has ceased to exist was a mistake nevertheless human error and mistakes and should not nullify the proceedings which are valid and no prejudice has been caused and the purpose behind section 292B is to ensure that technical pleas um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) on the ground of mistake, defect or omission should not invalidate the assessment proceedings, when no confusion or prejudice is caused due to non-observance of technical formalities. b. PCIT vs. Culver Max Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd. (2024) 169 taxmann.com 586 (Bombay).
In this case, the AO had also proceeded to pass the final assessment order in the name of non- existent entity and this assessment order assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and had succeeded before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the impugned order was passed against a non-existent entity. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed on the ground that no question of law was arisen and while referring to the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC), it was held that the assessment made in the name of non- existent entity is without jurisdiction, hence, null and void ab initio and as such type of order suffers from „jurisdictional defect‟ and not from „procedural defect‟, therefore the same cannot be curved even by section 292B, even if, c. Smt. Kaushalyabai vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 1008) (MP)
In this case, the notice u/s 148 was issued in the name of deceased assessee and the widow of deceased has participated in the proceedings, the defect, if any, stands automatically cured.
On the other hand Ld. AR in his written arguments has contested the departmental appeal on the following grounds:-
i) That the legal heir has not been taken on record as per the procedure laid down in the Act. The AO after becoming aware of death of the assessee, it was incumbent to bring the legal representative on record before proceeding in the matter. The deceased assessee namely, Mr. KhimjiKaramshi Patel had expired on 02.03.2021 and the assessee had duly intimated to the Jurisdictional A.O. about the death of the deceased assessee vide letter dated15.04.2021 along with copy of death certificate and copy of the Will as a proof of Mrs. RanibenKhimji Patel being the legal heir of the deceased assessee.However, the Ld. A.O. has brought the legal heir on record only on um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) 31.03.2023 and copy of the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act in the name of legal heir for A.Y. 2019-20 is enclosed as Annexure "A". It is evident from the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 06.08.2021 in the name of deceased assessee and further notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 09.09.2021 in the name of deceased assessee and further show cause notice dated 20.09.2021 also issued in the name of deceased assessee. The name of legal heir is not mentioned on these notices and simply mentioned the word „Legal Heir of KhimjiKaramshi Patel‟, therefore it does not fulfill the requirement of bringing the legal heir on record. ii) There is not a single reference to the Legal heir Mrs. RanibenKhimji Patel of the deceased assessee has been mentioned in the assessment proceedings. Nothing mentioned in the assessment order about the legal heir being taken on record and also not in the notices issued during the assessment proceeding. The assessment order issued in the name of deceased assessee and the address mentioned is Legal heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel, Ground Floor,
53. ShethMotisha Lane, Malgaon Mumbai Mumbai 400010, Maharashtra, India. iii) That the legal heir Mrs. RanibenKhimji Patel had proactively filed an application on the Income Tax Portal on 23.08.2021 seeking registration as the legal representative um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) of Late Mr. KhimjiKaramshi Patel and the said application was duly approved by the Department on 18.09.2021 prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 20.09.2021. Despite the formal approval and availability of this critical information on record, the Ld. AO failed to recognize and bring Mrs. RanibenKhimji Patel on record as the legal heir of the deceased assessee. Hence, this lapse on the part of the AO vitiates the entire assessment proceedings and renders it legally untenable. Ld. AR further relied on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta in case of SaharangshuKanta Acharya [1963]
47. ITR 754 (Cal.) wherein the assessment was made in the similar manner against a person without naming him, but describing the assessee as the „successor-in-interest‟ of a dead person. Further it was held that the provision of section 24B of the Income Tax Act 1922 corresponding to section 159 of the Income Tax Act 1961 were not satisfied. iv)Mere participation of Legal Heir in the assessment proceedings will not validate the assessment order passed on deceased assessee. It is stated that section 292B of the Act as is being claimed in the grounds of appeal is not applicable in this case because it cannot be invoked where there is a fundamental and substantive illegality, as opposed to a mere procedural defect which can be cured by section 292B of the Act. In this respect, Ld. AR has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC), wherein the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation and participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. Ld. AR further relied on the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in for AY 2011-12 order dated 03.02.2025 wherein it was held that Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) has categorically held that where assessment order is passed in the name of non existing entity, the same is without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. v) Further, reliance is also placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT v. Culver Max Entertainment (P.) Ltd (supra) and in the said case the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court had relied the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) and held that the assessment order passed in the name of non existing entity is without jurisdiction, hence null and void ab initio. It is therefore submitted that in view of the above referred case laws and the facts of the present case, such proceedings are nullity and section 292B cannot protect the revenue. um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) vi) Provision of section 159 of the Act has not been followed by the revenue because the legal heir has not been brought on record whereissuing the notices nor mentioned the name of legal heir in the assessment order. Since the proceedings have been carried out in the name of deceased assessee and not in the name of legal heir and also the assessment order has not been passed in the name of legal heir, therefore section 159 as relied by the revenue does not stand because the legal heir would be liable to pay tax only in the circumstances when the assessment order having been passed lawfully against the deceased assessee which is not the case here. vii) The legal notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued on the dead person is anullity and void ab initio and consequential order passed in the name of deceased person is also invalid and bad in law. In this regard, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in case of Bhupendra Bhikalal Desai v. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(1), Gujarat [2021] 130 taxmann.com 196 (Gujarat) and the said case was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Bhupendra Bhikalal Desai [2021] 131 Taxmann.com 40 (SC) wherein the SLP filed against the impugned order of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court was dismissed in limini. um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) viii) The case laws relied by the revenue of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in case of ACIT vs. Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra) was distinguishable because the order dated 19.11.2017 is passed on the existing entity i.e. Sky Light Hospitality LLP, but in the case in hand the notices issued and assessment order were passed in the name of deceased assessee and not in the name of legal heir namely Smt. RanibenKhimji Patel. Regarding the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Smt. Kaushalyabai v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 1008 (MP), it is submitted that in the said case, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act i.e. the impugned order is an ex-parte order and the death of the assessee is also not intimated by the legal heir to the Ld. AO, which is not the case here.
8. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order having been passed against the deceased assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act and also the notices were issued in the name of the deceased assessee where the death of assessee was already intimated to the AO, hence the assessment order passed against the dead person is nullity and the assessment proceedings, consequently are liable to be quashed. Therefore the grounds raised
by the revenue while taking protection of section 292B and 159 of the Act, are liable to be dismissed. um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel)
9. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. On examining the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue, the following points have arisen for determination:- i) Whether the issuance of assessment order in the name of deceased assessee is a procedural irregularity which can be cured by section 292B of the Act? ii) Whether the provision of section 159 of the Act are applicable or the legal heir is bound to pay the tax resulting from the assessment order issued in the name of deceased person and without bringing on record the legal heir in the assessment proceedings? iii) Whether filing of reply to some of notices during the assessment proceedings by legal heir of the deceased assesseewill result into enforcement of assessment proceedings against legal heir notwithstanding that neither the notices nor the assessment order was issued in her name?
10. As is evident from the submissions of the parties before us and the law referred by both the parties, we have noticed that section 292B of the Act applies when there is a procedural irregularity and not the substantive illegality. In this case, admittedly the notices were issued in the name of deceased assessee and not in the name of legal um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) heir even though the assessee has died on 02.03.2021. Further the assessment order has been passed in the name of deceased assessee and not in the name of legal heir as it is simply mentioned in the address on which the assessment order issued in the name of deceased assessee as under:-
During the oral arguments, Ld. AR has brought to our notice the order dated 15th February 2022 in Writ Petition um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) No. 2329 of 2021 at page no. 33 to 37 in the paper book, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has relied its earlier judgment in the case of SumitBalkarishna Gupta Vs. ACIT (2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bom) wherein it was held that notice issued in the name of dead person for re- opening is null and void in law. It was further held that the 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 because the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and 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. 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. On behalf of the revenue, Ld. DR was argued that this case is not applicable to the case in hand because the said order was with respect to reopening of the assessment order and in the present case, it is the original assessment and not the reopened assessment.
We are not convinced by the argument of Ld. DR because what is the binding precedent of a judgment is the ratio of decision arrived. The ratio of the decision relied by the assessee is that the notice issued in the name of dead um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) person and not in the name of legal heir, is not a mere procedural but a substantive illegality which is not even curable by section 292B of the Act. Hence this principle laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court is applicable in the present case because admittedly the notice during the assessment proceedings and the assessment order was issued in the name of deceased assessee and not in the name of legal heir of the deceased assessee. It is to be noticed that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act (placed at page 43 of the paper book) is issued to the deceased assessee on 31.03.2021 and statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is issued on 06.08.2021 (placed at page 44 of the paper book). Show cause notice is issued to deceased assessee on 20.09.2021. The assessee has already expired on 02.03.2021. Hence, the claim of the revenue that the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee when he was alive, is found to be factually incorrect.
Further, the provision of section 159 of the Act may also not be helping to the revenue and we are of the considered opinion that the basic requirement of the provision of section 159 of the Act that the legal heir is bound to pay the tax resulting from the assessment order having been issued in the name of deceased person, has not been fulfilled in this case because the legal heir has not been brought on record neither in the notices issued nor in the assessment order and just by mentioning „Legal um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) heir of the deceased assessee‟ will not satisfy the requirement of law for bringing the legal heir on record during the assessment proceedings. The grounds were raised in this appeal shows that revenue has admitted that there is alleged irregularity in issuing the notice as well as assessment order in the name of deceased assessee and for that reasons it has raised the ground of protection under the provision of section 292B of the Act alongwith section 159 of the Act. As held by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of assessee in Writ Petition no. 2329/2021 and 2394/2021 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2013-14 respectively, order dated 15.02.2022 (supra) that issuing of notice during the assessment proceedings and issuing of assessment order in the name of deceased assessee is not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive illegality during the assessment proceedings. Hence, the present case suffers from the substantive illegality and not from procedural irregularity which is not curable even by section 292B of the Act. Accordingly, both the points enumerated as Point No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the assessee.
With regard to Point no. 3, we are convinced by the arguments of Ld. AR that the case of the Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Kaushalyabai vs. CIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Moreover, the question of participation of the present appellant um/ 2025 RanibenKhimji Patel (Legal Heir of Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel) during the assessment proceedings does not arise because neither her name is mentioned in the notices nor the assessment order is issued in her name. If the revenue was so sure that the wife of the deceased assessee as legal heir has participated in the assessment proceedings, what prevented the AO to issue assessment order in her name as legal heir of deceased assessee. Admittedly, the assessment order is issued in the name of the deceased assessee Khimji Karamshi Patel and not in the name of his wife Smt. Raniben Khimji Patel, Legal heir of Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel. This shows that the legal heir of deceased assessee were not taken on record during the assessment proceeding and for that reason the assessment order was not issued in the name of legal heir of deceased assessee. Hence, the Point no. 3 is decided in favour of the assessee.
In the result, the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are accordingly dismissedand order of Ld. CIT (A) is confirmed. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.08.2025.