AMRITA JHUNJHUNWALA, L/H OF SAKET KHAITAN (SINCE DECEASED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 186/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal was disposed off on the ground that appeal has been filed against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act though the grounds of appeal has been taken against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the act.1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that assessment orders, rectification orders, and the order of the CIT(A) were passed against a dead person, making them void ab initio. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment, it was held that such proceedings and notices are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The core issue is that assessment proceedings were initiated and concluded against Saket Khaitan, who was deceased, without impleading his legal representative. The legal representative, Amrita Jhunjhunwala, had filed the return and informed about the death of the assessee. Despite this, the AO passed orders against a dead person.

What were the issues?

Whether assessment and consequential proceedings initiated against a deceased person without impleading the legal representative are valid in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 142,Section 148,Section 159,Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 09.12.2024 for AY 2019-20.

2.

The Ld. A.R in course of argument took a legal ground thereby submitting that the assessment proceedings initiated and concluded in the case of Saket Khaitan, a deceased person without bringing on record the legal representative. The Ld. A.R submits that the assessment order and the rectification order passed against a dead person i.e. nullity.

3.

The Ld. D.R only supports the impugned order but did not controvert the submission made by the AO.

4.

Since the AR has taken a legal ground thereby submitting that the assessment order, rectification order as well as order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are against a dead person, hence we have to decide this issue first.

5.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, and on perusal of the record, the following facts have been emerged being an admitted facts: i) The return of income for AY 2019-20 has filed by Amrita Jhunjhunwala being the legal representative of Saket Khaitan. ii) Return filed by Amrita Jhunjhunwala was selected for a scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 13.11.2020. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.09.2021 determining the total income of Rs. 43,37,138/-. On perusal of the said order, it would be found that the while on the body of the assessment order the addition of Rs. 24,47,758/- was made but while calculating tax liability no tax was calculated on the aforesaid addition of Rs. 24,47,758/-.

Assessment Year: 2019-20 Amrita Jhunjhunwala, L/H of Saket Khaitan (Since Deceased) iii) The AO, realizing the mistake, passed an order u/s 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.11.2021. Amrita Jhunjhunwala filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal was disposed off on the ground that appeal has been filed against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act though the grounds of appeal has been taken against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the act.

6. It is important to mention herein that the assessment order was passed against Saket Khaitan, rectification order passed against Saket Khaitan and again Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order against Saket Khaitan. It is pertinent to mention here that the return of income was filed by one Amrita Jhunjhunwala by mentioning that she is the legal representative of Saket Khaitan. It is further pertinent to mention here that notices issued u/s 142 of the Act has also been in the name of Saket Khaitan. The reply of the notice has been given by Amrita Jhunjhunwala stating that she is the legal heirs of the assessee as the assessee has died on 11.09.2019. The assessee in its reply had clearly been mentioned that Saket Khaitan has expired on 11.09.2019 but order passed by the AO u/s 143 and 154 was all in the name of Saket Khaitan a dead person. In this context, we have gone through the judgment passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court filed by the assessee in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Preethi V. reported in [2025] 170 taxmann.com 673 (Kar-HC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held thus:

Section 148, read with section 159, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for (Deceased assessee) – Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessee had passed away on 14-10-2022 - Notice under section 148 was issued on 13-3-2023 - Assessee filed a petition contending that while notice was issued under section 148 against a dead person, such notice being invalid, all consequential proceedings including assessment order and penalty notices were required to be set aside - Whether notice under section 148 issued against a deceased person is invalid in law - Held, yes - Whether proceedings against deceased's-legal representatives are permissible only if initiated in compliance with section 159(2)(b) - Held, yes - Whether since time limit under section 149(1)(b) for initiating proceedings for assessment year 2016-17 had expired, proceedings under section 148 could not have been initiated against legal representative of deceased assessee - Held, yes - Whether therefore, notice under section 148 and all consequential orders, including demand and penalty notices, were to be quashed and set aside Held, yes [Paras 3, 8, 11 and 13] [In favour of assessee]”

7.

Keeping in view the above discussion as well as considering the judgment as discussed above, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the order passed by the AO, Assessment Year: 2019-20 Amrita Jhunjhunwala, L/H of Saket Khaitan (Since Deceased) notices issued are all bad in law as it has been passed against a dead person. Hence all the proceedings are hereby quashed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2025

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi/संजय अव�थी) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 22nd July, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Amrita Jhunjhunwala, L/H of Saket Khaitan (Since Deceased), 22/5, Nalini Ranjan Avenue, Block-A, New Alipore, Kolkata- 700053 2. Respondent – ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-21, Kolkata 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →