Chandraprabha Nagardas Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The Pune ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal and quashed an assessment order framed in the name of a deceased assessee. The assessee had died on 05.02.2016, while her son, Shri Deepak Nagardas Mehta, filed the return on 20.02.2017 as legal heir and participated in the assessment proceedings. Despite the Assessing Officer being aware of the death, the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed in the deceased assessee’s name, determining income at ₹27,91,520 after adding ₹22,96,008 as unexplained cash balance.
The Addl./JCIT(A) rejected the jurisdictional challenge, observing that the legal heir had actively participated, furnished replies and contested the addition on merits. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that an assessment framed on a dead person was a nullity. The Revenue relied on the lower orders and alternatively sought restoration for assessment in the legal heir’s name.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer admittedly knew of the assessee’s death and should have followed the procedure applicable to a deceased assessee. Relying on the cited judicial precedents, including decisions concerning notices and assessments against deceased persons, the Tribunal held that the assessment order framed on the dead person was a nullity. It accordingly quashed the assessment and allowed the appeal.
Cases Discussed
- Manjusha Anil Lodha vs. PCIT (ITAT), ITA No.953/PUN/2024 order dated 10.10.2025
- Shri Vishnu Kumar Katuri vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad), ITA No.628/Hyd/2023 order dated 31.01.2024 for assessment year 2011-12
- CLSA India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court), (2023) 149 com 380 (Bom)
- Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court), (2023) 458 ITR 326 (Bom)
- Shri Siva Janardhana Varma Muppala vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT), order dated 31.03.2023
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.03.2026 of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), Varanasi relating to assessment year 201617.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 20.02.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,95,510/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 18.09.2017 and served on 21.09.2017. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued on 25.10.2017, 22.11.2017 and 08.01.2018 respectively. The Assessing Officer observed from the reply that the assessee died on 05.02.2016 and Shri Deepak Nagardas Mehta, son of the assessee filed submissions on 29.11.2018 and 20.12.2018 respectively. In the submissions filed he has submitted that the assessee was engaged in providing services as a property broker on commission basis. In addition to this, she was getting interest on deposits and rent in respect of shop premises. The assessee expired on 05.02.2016. It was also submitted that the assessee was assessed to income tax for last 30 years and her income position was purely on cash basis as available in her income tax file. Despite informing the Assessing Officer that the assessee has died, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment in the name of the deceased person. A perusal of the assessment order at para 3.3 shows that although the Assessing Officer acknowledges the same, he justified his reason to proceed to complete the assessment in the name of the deceased assessee by observing as under:
“3.3 The assessee had died on 05.02.2016 and her son, Shri Deepak Nagardas Mehta filed the return of income of Late Smt. Chandraprabha Nagardas Mehta belatedly on 20.02.2017. As such Shri Deepak Mehta should file the return of income of the assessee in the capacity of “legal heir” or at least, as a “representative assessee”. However, the same was not appearing on the first page of the return of income. Therefore, vide this office letter dated: 20.12.2018, it is brought to the notice that as per submission Shri Deepak Mehta has filed the return of his mother in the capacity of legal heir, however, the same is not appearing in the return of the assessee.
3.4 In response to this query, Shri Deepak Mehta submitted that it is appeared in verification where it was mentioned that return was submitted & signed by legal heir. He also submitted that he has been informed this fact vide his manual submission of letter dated: 22.01.2018. As the scrutiny is to be completed in e- proceeding only, there is no worth what have been submitted by the assessee through manual submission.
3.5 Shri Deepak Mehta further submitted that his mother was holding 7.4 acres agriculture land. He has also filed copy of 7/12 extract for F.Y.2009.
4. Thereafter, vide this office letter dated: 25.12.2018, Shri Deepak Mehta was requested to attend this office on 26.12.2018 at 11:00 A.M.
4.1 Shri Deepak Mehta filed his reply on ITBA Portal mentioning there in that he is out of station for medical treatment and he may return to Ahmednagar by 05.01.2019. Further he submitted cash account for the year ended from 31.03.1999 to 05.02 2016.
5. The submission made by Shri Deepak Mehta is not acceptable for the following reasons:-
i. Chandraprabha Nagardas Mehta filed her return since A.Y. 200405 only and not before that.
ii. As per balance sheet of the assessee, she is having two lands at Vilad & Gat no.171 and also one shop & gold & silver ornaments. As such, this must be invested obviously from her Income only. Whereas Shri Deepak Mehta trying to show that his entire income as savings by way of cash in hand.
iii. In the submission dt. 26 12 2018, Shri Deepak Mehta filed cash account for the year ended from 31.03.1999 to 05.02.2016. As per which debits shown by him are totaling to Rs. 6,54,870/-. This has not includes assets purchased by the assessee.
iv.Shri Mehta has filed chart of assessee’s regular income, agriculture income and debit for the period F.Y. 1998-99 till 2015-16. The total of regular income and agriculture income is Rs.37,25,510/- and withdrawal Rs.6,25,870/- as such capital balance, if any remains Rs.30,99,640/-. Whereas the assessee showed opening capital as on 01.04.2015 is Rs.54,27,797/-. In the Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.03.2015, the assessee has shown opening capital at Rs.42,21,488/- as against Rs.29,53,440/- and added Rs.11,00,000/- from Mehta Trading Company. Neither he submitted nature of entry or supporting evidence. Moreover, amount received from any person, how can it be addition to capital? On perusal of return of Mehta Trading Company for A.Y. 2015-16, no amount of Rs.11,00,000/- is reflecting in Balance Sheet / Return of income of Mehta Trading Company. The chart provided on ITBA portal for assessee’s income and debits is as under-
”……………..
3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,91,520/- wherein he made addition of Rs.22,96,008/- as unexplained cash balance.
4. Before the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order being framed on a dead person. However, the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) dismissed the same by observing as under:
8. Decision on the Jurisdictional Ground
I have carefully considered the assessment order, the material available on record, and the submissions reflected in the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the original assessee had expired prior to completion of assessment proceedings. It is also not in dispute that Shri Deepak Nongdas Mehta, son of the deceased, entered appearance before the Assessing Officer, filed replies, furnished details, filed explanations, submitted financial affairs for multiple years, responded to questionnaires, and contested the proposed addition on merits. The record shows sustained and conscious participation in the proceedings. The representative did not remain absent from the process; rather, he availed the opportunity of hearing, filed online replies, furnished charts, cash accounts, and supporting papers, and fully joined issue on the merits of the addition.
In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to annul the assessment solely on the ground that the notices and final order bore the name of the deceased assessee. The substance of the proceedings shows that the legal representative was fully aware of the proceedings, understood their nature, actively participated therein, and furnished explanations in that very capacity. No prejudice of a real and substantive nature is shown to have been caused in the conduct of the proceedings by reason of the description adopted in the notices and order. The proceedings were in effect contested by the legal heir and the assessment cannot, in the facts of the present case, be rendered void merely for this reason when the appellant fully participated and addressed the matter on merits.
Accordingly, the ground seeking annulment of the assessment on this basis is rejected.
5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:
All the following grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other –
1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) VARANASI erred in confirming the addition (partial) without appreciating the fact that the assessment order itself is null and void as entire assessment proceedings carried on the name of diseased assessee. Hence, the impugned order may please be set aside and the addition confirmed therein may please be deleted.
2. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) VARANASI erred in confirming the addition (partial) without appreciating the submission made by the assessee. Hence, the impugned order may please be set aside and the addition confirmed therein may please be deleted.
3. The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee died on 05.02.2016 and the return was filed by her son Shri Deepak Nagardas Mehta. Despite this fact known to the Assessing Officer, he passed the order in the name of the deceased person. Therefore, such assessment order framed on a deceased person is a nullity. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:
i. Shri Vishnu Kumar Katuri vs. ITO vide ITA No.628/Hyd/2023 order dated 31.01.2024 for assessment year 2011-12
ii. Manjusha Anil Lodha vs. PCIT vide ITA No.953/PUN/2024 order dated 10.10.2025 for assessment year 2018-19
iii. CLSA India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2023) 149 com 380 (Bom)
iv. Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs. ACIT reported in (2023) 458 ITR 326 (Bom)
7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). In his alternate contention, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to frame the assessment in the name of the legal heir.
8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) 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 the assessee died on 05.02.2016 and the return of income was filed on 20.02.2017 by Shri Deepak Nagardas Mehta in his capacity as the legal heir. There may be some mistake on the part of the assessee by not mentioning on the first page of the return as mentioned by the Assessing Officer. Nonetheless, the fact that the assessee has died on 05.02.2016 was very much known to the Assessing Officer and therefore, he should have followed the procedure as laid down in law. However, he has not done so and passed the order in the name of a dead person. The Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) also upheld the validity of the assessment framed on a dead person.
9. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs. ACIT (supra) has held that the notice issued on a dead person or reopening of assessment of a dead person is null and void in law. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under:
“9. We have heard both counsel and perused the papers and proceedings.
10. The facts are not in dispute. The impugned notice for reopening the assessment was issued on a dead person. There are several judgments of different High Courts holding that the notice issued on a dead person or reopening of assessment of a dead person is null and void in law and the requirement of issuing a notice to a correct person is not merely a procedural requirement but a condition precedent for a notice to be valid in law. A reference in this respect can be made to a decision of this court in Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai2. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.3 the Apex Court has held that the notice issued and the order passed in the name of an old entity is bad in law and that such error was not curable u/s 292B of the Act as the same constitutes a substantive illegality and not a mere procedural violation.
11. This Court in the case of CLSA India Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 4(1)(1) & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 2462 of 2022 whilst allowing the Petition has held that the stand of the revenue that the reassessment was justified in view of the fact that the PAN in the name of the nonexistent entity had remained active does not create an exception in favour of the revenue to dilute in any manner the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v/s CIT4 and in the case of PCIT New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra).
12. Keeping in mind, the averments in paragraph 20 of the reply, extracted hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the respondent no.1 would not have been wrong, keeping the settled law in mind, in abstaining from issuing a notice on the deceased assessee. The respondent no.2 would also not have been wrong in not granting the sanction to the respondent no.1 for issuance of a notice on the deceased assessee, since the department was aware of the demise of the assessee and since the ITBA system is undergoing a change and being updated with new functionalities and modalities. In our view, if the concerned officers follow the settled law and abstain from issuing notices which are null and void, would not only help the citizenry but also the courts in the country who are already overburdened. In fact, it would be in tune with the Finance Act 2021 which aims to achieve the ultimate object of simplifying the tax administration, ease compliance and reduce litigation.
13. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void and consequently, the impugned notice dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148 of the Act, the Order dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act and Notice dated 19th March 2022 u/s 148A(b) of the Act are quashed and set aside and all actions in furtherance thereto are prohibited.”
10. We find the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vishnu Kumar Katuri vs. ITO (supra) at paras 11 and 12 has observed as under:
“11. In the light of the above, we annul the assessment which has been made on a deceased person. For the above proposition, we rely on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Siva Janardhana Varma Muppala vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) order dated 31.03.2023 wherein it was held as under:
“7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is an admitted fact that the assessment order was passed on the name of the deceased assessee, and the name of the LR is not reflected on the face of the order. It is not in dispute that the demand under section 156 of the Act was raised against the deceased assessee, such a demand cannot be enforced against the LR of the deceased assessee because the assessment order is passed against the deceased assessee. Any order passed against the deceased person is a nullity and no consequent demand could be permitted to be enforced against any person other than the one against whom the assessment order was passed. In view of the fact that the assessment order in this case is a nullity, we find force in the argument of the learned AR and quash the assessment proceedings. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
12. In view of the above discussion, the notice issued u/s 148 on a dead person is a nullity. Consequently, the order passed u/s 144/147 of the I.T. Act and the demand so raised are quashed.”
11. We find the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manjusha Anil Lodha vs. PCIT (supra) at para 10 has observed as under:
“10. In light of above facts and judicial precedent, since the impugned order is passed in the name of deceased assessee, we quash the order of the ld.PCIT allowing the legal issue raised vide Grounds of appeal No. 4 and 5.”
12. Since admittedly in the instant case the assessment order has been framed on a dead person, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold that such order is a nullity and accordingly the same is quashed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th July, 2026.
