NAGARAJAN PERUMAL (DECEASED) REP.BY L/H LAKSHMI PRABHU,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

The assessee has taken a ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in the name of deceased person and without affording sufficient opportunity therefore, the order may be quashed.

The assessment in this case was completed by ACIT-1, Circle- I(2), Salem on 25.03.2014, making an addition of Rs. 82,80,340/- against the returned income of Rs. 45,40,047/-. The assessee filled appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and subsequently expired on 04.10.2020.

The Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 29.01.2025 in the name of the deceased person, without affording sufficient opportunity.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has contended that the order of Ld CIT(A) is invalid as it has been passed in the name of deceased person .

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee expired on 04.10.2020 and that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 29.01.2025 in the name of the deceased person. As the impugned order has been passed ex-parte in the name of a deceased person, the same is unsustainable in law. We accordingly set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to pass a fresh order after bringing the legal heir on record and after affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.