Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a return of income for assessment year 2013-14. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act due to information about an immovable property purchase and cash deposits. Notices were issued, but there was no compliance, leading to an ex-parte assessment by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had not adjudicated the legal ground regarding the assessment being framed on a dead person. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication as per fact and law.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order framed in the name of a deceased person is invalid and liable to be quashed. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B, 69A, 69, 69C, 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14.
The only effective ground raised
by the assessee reads as under:
1. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act, 1961 on 12.09.2021, in the name of a dead person was invalid by law and therefore void-ab-initio and was required to be quashed. The appellant prays that for the above stated reason the order of assessment be kindly quashed.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal/relief claimed at any time before the decision of the appeal.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. Information available with the Department as per AIR that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for an amount of Rs.96,14,000/- and there was cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee and the assessee has not filed his return of income. The case of the assessee was therefore reopened as per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 09.03.2020 was issued electronically on the assessee’s e-mail registered with the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the said notice. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dt 30.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 were also issued by the JAO and served on the e-mail of the assessee electronically calling upon him to furnish the details required in connection with the reopened assessment proceedings. However, there was no compliance to the said notices. Subsequently, the Faceless Assessing Officer again issued notice u/s 142(1) dt 10.02.2021 asking the assessee to file certain details. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the said notice and subsequent notices issued thereafter, the FAO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,90,840/- by making the following additions: i) Unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A Rs.5,00,000/- ii) Unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 Rs.96,14,000/- iii) Unexplained expenditure towards stamp duty and registration charges u/s 69C Rs.5,76,840/-
Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the assessment order has been framed on a dead assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC after considering the various submissions made by the assessee restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the legal grounds raised
before him challenging the validity of assessment on a dead assessee. Relying on the following decisions, she submitted that the assessment on a dead person is invalid: i) Motilal Hastimaji Bothra vs. ITO (2023) 108 ITR(T) 166 (Mumbai-Trib.) ii) Smt. Sowmya S. vs. ITO & Ors. vide W.P. No.25728 of 2023, order dated 19.06.2024 iii) Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 502 (Del) iv) Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani vs. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD
30. (Rajkot-Trib.)
Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motilal Hastimaji Bothra vs. ITO (supra), she submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assessee expired much prior to passing of reassessment order and issuance of notices and his legal heir was not brought on record and no notice was issued in name of legal heir, reassessment order framed in name of assessee-deceased was non-est in the eyes of law and hence was to be quashed.
Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (supra), she submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that in absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum of death of assessee to department and, thus, where Assessing Officer issued a notice to assessee under section 148 after his death and, in such a case, it could not have been validly served upon assessee, said notice being invalid, was to be quashed.
Referring to the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani vs. PCIT (supra), she submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assessee expired while assessment order was being framed, in absence of any specific statutory provision under income tax law which would require legal heirs to intimate department about death of assessee, assessment order could not be held to be valid only for reason that legal heirs of deceased assessee had not informed about death of assessee, and thus such invalid assessment order could not be revised by taking recourse to section 263 proceedings. She accordingly submitted that since the assessment order has been framed on a dead assessee, therefore, such assessment order being invalid, should be quashed.
In her alternate contention, she submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the legal grounds raised before him, therefore, she has no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the legal grounds raised before him.
The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that since the assessment order was passed ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has rightly restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 22.09.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,90,840/-. We find the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the assessment has been framed on a dead person. Although the assessee has taken a specific ground as per ground of appeal No.1 before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, however, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the legal ground raised before him but adjudicated the grounds on merit and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Since the assessee has taken a specific ground before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of assessment on account of framing of the assessment order on a dead person and since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the legal ground raised before him which he was duty bound to do, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the legal ground raised before him as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th August, 2025.