Nisha RajendraMavani Legal Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee’s appeal and held that assessment framed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity in law. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had died before passing of assessment order, yet the AO proceeded u/s 147/144 without issuing notice to legal heirs, and even the CIT(A) failed to rectify the defect despite being informed. Relying on Savita Kapila (Delhi HC), it held that legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the department.
On merits also, the Tribunal observed that compensation received for surrender of tenancy rights was invested in purchase of a new residential house within prescribed time, making the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 54F. Accordingly, the reassessment was declared invalid and addition of ₹1.20 crore u/s 69B along with consequential interest was deleted, and the appeal was allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 13.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that the reopening of assessment of the appellant u/s 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.
2. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that assessment order passed in the name of deceased person is bad in law.
3. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have deleted interest charged of Rs.32,63,040/- u/s 234A, and Rs.34,48,440/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify OR DLEETE any of the above Grounds of Appeal.”
2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessing officer passed the assessment order against the dead person. The assessment was passed on 06.12.2019, though the assessee died on 23.10.2019, copy of death certificate is placed on record. No notice either under section 148 or any other notice during the assessment was received by legal heirs of assessee. The appellant while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) in Form 35 clearly mentioned this fact that the assessee has died. Despite bringing such fact in the notice of ld. CIT(A), no remedial action was taken by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer. The ld. AR of the appellant submits that it is admitted position under the law that order against the dead person is nullity. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is no obligation under the provision of Income Tax Act to intimate the death of assessee to Revenue as has been held by Delhi High Court in Sativa Kapila Legal Heir of Late Shri Mohinder Paul Kapila vs ACIT W.P.(C) 3258/2020.
