Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. A crucial fact that emerged was that the order was passed in the name of a deceased assessee, despite the death certificate being provided to the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a deceased person, without impleading legal heirs, is null and void and a violation of natural justice, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The CIT(A) failed to take steps to substitute the legal heirs or issue them notice.
Key Issues
Whether an order passed by the CIT(A) in the name of a deceased assessee without legal heir substitution is valid and whether it violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 144(1)(a), 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15/04/2024 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] is patently illegal, erroneous and bad in law and on facts.
2. That the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee post his death is invalid, unenforceable and non-est in law.
3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order under section 144(1)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee had duly filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act.
4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-prosecution without even deciding the appeal on merits.
2 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,10,51,575/- made by the Ld. AO on account of cash deposit of Rs.61,37,575/- and income from unknown sources of Rs. 49,14,000/-. 6. That the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the CIT(A) suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 7. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, resign, for go or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice.
The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) is null and void as it has been passed in the name of a deceased person. It was contended that the death of the assessee had been duly brought to the notice of the CIT(A) along with a copy of the death certificate. The Ld. AR drew our attention to paragraph 4.3 of the appellate order, which clearly acknowledges this fact. The relevant observation reads as under:
It is seen that the present appeal has been filed in the name of the deceased appellant and the information in this regard has been provided by the AR, who has also furnished a copy of the death certificate of the deceased assessee.
3.1 The Ld. AR argued that despite this disclosure, no steps were taken by the CIT(A) to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased appellant or to serve notice upon them. It was submitted that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity and deserves to be set aside. In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Binod Pathak & Ors. v. Shankar Choudhary & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7706 of 2025, dated 14.07.2025], wherein the Apex Court held that no party can derive benefit from its own wrong and that failure to comply with Rule 10A of Order XXII CPC vitiates the appellate proceedings.
3.2. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). However, he fairly admitted that the fact of death was mentioned in the appellate record and acknowledged in the order itself. The Ld. DR submitted 3 that the matter may be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after bringing the legal heirs on record in accordance with law.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the order passed by the CIT(A) is in the name of a deceased person. Further, the CIT(A) was made aware of this fact by the AR, and the death certificate was also placed on record, as admitted in para 4.3 of the appellate order.
4.1 Despite such disclosure, no effort was made by the CIT(A) to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, and the appellate order was passed without issuing notice to any of the legal representatives. This is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Binod Pathak (supra) has categorically held that such orders are non est in the eyes of law. It was held that a pleader owes a duty to the court to inform the death of the party, and failure to act upon such information renders the proceeding a nullity. The Supreme Court further held that: “In order to avoid procedural justice scoring a march over substantial justice, Rule 10A was introduced. The failure to comply with this rule cannot be taken lightly or brushed aside.”
4.3 In view of the above, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR. The order passed by the CIT(A) is legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.
4.4 The matter is remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after bringing the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4.5 We also make it clear that all legal issues relating to the pecuniary and subjective jurisdiction of the CIT(A), including the jurisdiction of NFAC, shall remain open to be adjudicated by the CIT(A), if raised by the assessee, in accordance with law. This direction is particularly relevant in light of the fact that the returned income of the assessee was more than ₹50 lakhs, which 4 may have a bearing on the jurisdiction under the CBDT Notification assigning cases to NFAC.
In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.