Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. A notice under section 148 was issued on 21.03.2018, but the assessee had expired on 02.01.2012. The assessment proceedings were initiated against a deceased person.
Held
The tribunal held that a notice under section 148 issued to a deceased person is invalid and any proceedings or assessment order passed thereafter is a nullity. An individual assessee must be a living person for assessment. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was quashed.
Key Issues
Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing notice under section 148 to a deceased assessee.
Sections Cited
148, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jayveersingh Jashubhai ITO, Vs. Chudasama, Ward – 5, L/h Divyaben Jayveersingh Valsad Chudasama, 34, Jalaram Nagar Swadhyayamandal Road, Killa Pardi, Valsad - 396125 [PAN: AJHPC4212A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent by: Ms Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.12.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Notice u/s 148 has been issued on 21.03.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. It was submitted that the assessee received notice on 02.01.2012, in the notice issued is invalid. The Ld. Sr. DR argued that the assessee has not informed revenue authorities about the demise of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was not informed the details of assessee. Hence, the notice has been rightly issued. Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2–
However, the fact on that notice u/s 148 has been issued on the deceased person, which may the proceedings were initiated.
The Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions: (i) Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghi vs. ACIT, 151 taxmann.com 541 (Bom.) (ii) Urmila Saxena vs. CBDT, 159 taxmann.com 64 (MP) (iii) Krishnaawater Kabra vs. ITO, 140 taxmann.com 423 (Guj.) (iv) Lal Chand Verma vs. UOI, 170 taxmann.com 825 (Del.) (v) Rasid Lala vs. ITO, 77 taxmann.com 39 (Guj.) (vi) Urmila Anurudhhasinhji Jadeja vs. ITO, 117 taxmann.com 504 (Guj.)
The Ld. AR relied on the decisions in the case of Urmilaben Aniruddhasinhji Jadeja (supra) wherein it was held that reopening notice under section 148 issued against a dead person would be a nullity and, proceedings pursuant to a reopening notice issued to a dead person could not be continued against legal representative. It was submitted that the notice u/s 148 issued in the name of the deceased person was invalid. The order passed by the CIT(A) in the name of the dead person is also a nullity.