Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee, legal heir of the deceased Lalitha Narayanan, appealed an order that set aside an assessment and referred it back for a fresh assessment. The original assessment was made on a deceased person, which the Assessee argued was invalid.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a dead person is a nullity. Therefore, both the original assessment order and the appellate order restoring the issue back to the AO were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is valid and can be sustained.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1.
Ms. Manju Anand being legal heir of late Ms. Lalitha Narayanan for the assessment year 2015-16 against the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (A) appeal passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for assessment year 2015-16 on 07.02.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 and the 144 of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Bangalore on late Ms. Lalitha Narayanan was set aside and case was referred back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment.
The Assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us.
The Appeal is delayed by 8 days. The order of Ld. CIT(A) passed on 07.02.2025 and the appeal was filed on 08.05.2025 causing a delay of 8 days. It was claimed by the Assessee that she was travelling out of country from 17.04.2025 to 28.04.2025 and thereafter fell sick which has caused delay of 8 days in filing of the Appeal. The Ld. Authorized Representative also reiterated the same. The Ld. DR stated that the reason is not sufficient.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that delay of 8 days is nominal and for sufficient cause and therefore same is condoned and appeal is admitted.
The Ld. Authorized Representative submits that the Ld. CIT(A) in paragraph no. 4 has stated that notice u/s. 250 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 29.01.2025, however, the Assessee has not filed any information. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that, that the Assessment challenged in the Appeal is in order, passed u/s. 144 of the Act and therefore restored the issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessment Officer. The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that, that Assessee has submitted complete details before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.02.2025. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly stated that Assessee has not furnished any details. It was further submitted that it has not been considered by the CIT(A). The Faceless Appeal Centre has indicated that no records are pending and therefore the Grievances of the Assessee was closed. He submitted that Assessee has submitted the written submission, a detailed paper book, additional grounds and several annexures. He submits that 121 documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which were not considered before deciding the appeal of the Assessee.He also submits that assessment order is passed in the
The Ld. DR submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are clear and has restored the issue back to the file of the Ld. AO and therefore no grievance is caused.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the Ld. lower authorities. The facts showthat that the Assessee has made a financial transaction on sale of an immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,02,50,000/- and did not file the return of income. Therefore, for assessment year 2015-16, the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 07.04.2022 through post and also by E-mail. Thereafter, proceedings 148A continued but did not file any return of income. Subsequently, the case was transferred to NFAC which was once again returned back to the Jurisdictional Officer and subsequently notice was issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The Assessee replied with a vide letter dated 04.02.2024. Assessee submitted the details of the property sold by submitting the sale deed etc. and consequently amount invested in new house property. The Assessing Officer was intimated that on 15.01.2015, the Assessee,late Smt. Lalitha Narayanan has passed away, and Smt. Manju Anand is the legal heir of the Assessee. On verification of the documents, the Ld. Assessing Officer determining the long term capital gain on sale consideration of the property at Rs. 1,02,50,000/- representing the cost of acquisition of Rs. 12,00,000/- and determining the long term capital gains of Rs. 90,50,000/-. The amount of Rs. 99,640/- was made about the income from other sources and a sum of Rs. 6,87,265/- was the premium payment of the Life Insurance Corporation. Accordingly, the total assessed income was determined at Rs. 98,36,905/- in the name of late Smt. Lalitha Narayanan. Thus, the Assessment Order was passed in the name of dead person.
The CIT(A) disposed of the Appeal of the Assessee by restoring the issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer passing an Appellate Order also in the name of a dead person.
Both the lower authorities are aware that Smt. Lalitha Narayanan has passed away which is recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer in his Assessment Order and therefore the fact clearly shows that, that Assessment Order as well as the Appellate Order has been passed in the name of a dead person, Smt. Lalitha Narayanan. Assessment Order in the name of dead person cannot be sustained. Honourable Delhi High court in 2022 SCC Online Del 3899in Vikram Bhatnagar as Legal Representative Acting for and on Behalf of Legal Heirs of Late Sh. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar (Deceased) … Petitioner;VersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax … Respondent has held that assessment order passed in the name of a dead person is a nullity.
Accordingly, the Appellate Order and the Reassessing Order both deserve to be qualified. Accordingly, same are quashed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th December 2025.