LATE SINGARAVELU KRISHNAMMAL, L/H. R.S. GANDHI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAPATTINAM

Late Singaravelu Krishnammal, Income Tax Officer, Represented by Legal Heir, Ward-1, No.105, Big Bazaar Street, Nagappattinam, Nagore(PO), Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu-611 002. [PAN: AJRPK8734D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr.I.Roopa, Addl, CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057830608(1) dated 09.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 09.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 301 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal. It is the case of the appellant being the legal heir of the deceased assessee late Singaravelu that the email id of the deceased assessee had become inaccessible after her death. The legal heir could only learn about the Income Tax proceedings when recovery notices were received. It was urged that the delay was neither intentional nor wanton. Request was accordingly made to condone the delay and adjudicate this appeal. We have noted that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the requested delay is condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the main issue in the appeal is assessment made upon a dead person. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO has made two additions of Rs. 4,95,142/- estimating business income at 8% of the receipts of Rs. 61,89,284/- in her account and of cash deposits of Rs.15,74,672/- u/s 69A. It is the case of the assessee that Smt.Singaravelu Krishnammal demised on 18.02.2017 and that the Ld.AO has made assessment, vide his order u/s 144 dated 28.12.2019 on a dead person. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority rejected its arguments for assessment being made on dead person by drawing erroneous conclusions. In support of its contentions, the Ld. AR Page - 2 - of 5 placed reliance upon a catena of judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. KCG Varghese 416 ITR 155. It has accordingly been requested to quash the assessment order u/s 144 dated 28.12.2017. The Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The principal issue seminal to this appeal is whether an assessment can be made upon a dead person or not. It is an undisputed fact on records that the assessee had expired on 18.02.2017. The Ld. AO has observed in his order u/s 144 dated 28.12.2019, that this case was selected as a potential case for enquiry where no return of income was filed. The Ld. AO got information from City Union Bank regarding cash deposits in assessee’s bank account during the demonetization period. As per para 2.2 of the assessment order, notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 08.03.2018 and served upon 14.03.2018 followed by another letter issued / served dated 21.06.2019. As per para 4 of pre-assessment notice dated 22.07.2019 was issued which was served upon 24.07.2019 requesting for explaining the credits in the bank account. As per para 5 of the order, the assessee filed a return of income for AY-2017-18 on 18.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.7,70,150/-. The Ld. AO proceeded to treat the same as non est being filed beyond timelines prescribed u/s 139(1) / 139(4). The Page - 3 - of 5 Ld.CIT(A) has affirmed the action of the Ld.AO on the premise that there is nothing on records to suggest that the intimation of assessee’s death was effectively communicated to the Ld.AO. He is of the view that unless the Ld. AO learns of this fact, he cannot be expected to act otherwise. His views are partly correct in as much as, demonstrative evidence to this effect is lacking on records. The fact however remains is the question as to whether the impugned order has been made in respect of a dead person or not ??. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. KCG Varghese 416 ITR 155 has laid the ratio that no assessment can be done on a dead person. The decision echoes in decisions of several other superior judicial authorities. Law prohibits any action against a dead person. In the instant case the assessee has died on 18.02.2017 and according to Ld.AO a return of income was filed on 18.10.2019. The question that thus arises is as to when the assessee died how and who had filed the return of income. Surely the same could not have been filed by the deceased late Singaravelu Krishnammal. It goes on to indicate the return filed per se was not correct. The argument advanced by the Ld.CIT(A) of the Ld.AO not in knowledge of assessee’s death is also partly correct since the very fact that the order was passed u/s 144 showed that there was only once sided communication between the Ld.AO and the assessee.

Page - 4 - of 5 5.0 Accordingly, we are of the considered view that as the assessee had died on 18.02.2017, no assessment order could have been passed on the deceased assessee. The order of lower authorities is therefore set aside and the order u/s 144 dated 28.12.2019 is quashed. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the issue of legal challenge to the assessment order are therefore allowed. 6.0 As the assessee has succeeded on legal grounds, the grounds of appeal qua merits of the addition have become purely academic. 7.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 9th , April-2025 at Chennai.