Blossom Nandi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: This appeal was preferred by the assessee, through Ms. Blossom Nandi, stated to be the legal representative of Late Shri Santanu Amalendu Nundy, against the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2020-21. The appeal arose from the assessment order dated 27.03.2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144. The assessee had originally filed the return on 24.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs.2,01,970/-. Following information from the Investigation Wing pursuant to a search conducted on 12.06.2023 concerning entities belonging to the Isprava Group and other persons, notice under section 148 dated 20.03.2024 was issued in the name of Shri Santanu Amalendu Nundy, who had died on 07.01.2022. During assessment proceedings, the authorised representative informed the Assessing Officer of the death and furnished the death certificate on 05.11.2024, but proceedings continued in the name of “Legal Heir of Late Santanu Amalendu Nundy”. The assessment involved alleged long-term capital gains of Rs.33,18,820/- relating to an immovable property at Anjuman, Goa, and additions of Rs.18,15,750/- on substantive basis and Rs.18,15,750/- on protective basis concerning alleged cash consideration. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged, inter alia, the validity of the notice issued in the deceased assessee’s name and alleged violations of sections 148A, 151 and 151A, besides challenging the merits of the additions. The CIT(A) had rejected the jurisdictional and procedural grounds as technical and procedural, while setting aside the assessment and restoring the merits to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional grounds went to the root of the reassessment proceedings and required specific adjudication. It observed that the CIT(A) had not recorded independent and specific findings on those legal grounds and that section 250(6) required the appellate order to state the points for determination, decision and reasons. The Tribunal also noted the Revenue’s submission regarding the return for AY 2022-23 filed through the deceased assessee’s e-filing account and expressly stated that it expressed no opinion on the merits of either contention. The impugned order dated 10.02.2026 was set aside and the entire appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to first decide all jurisdictional and legal grounds by a reasoned and speaking order and, if the reassessment proceedings were held valid, thereafter adjudicate the additions on merits. All contentions were kept open. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
