Late Shri Sampat Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Appellate Order Passed Against a Deceased Assessee Cannot Stand: Delhi ITAT Directs Fresh Decision Through Legal Heir
NFAC Ordered to Bring Legal Heir on Record and Provide a Proper Hearing
In Late Shri Sampat through Legal Heir Smt. Risali v. ITO, ITA No.5831/Del/2026, concerning AY 2011–12, the Delhi ITAT set aside an appellate order passed in the name of an assessee who had died more than five years earlier.
The Tribunal directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre to verify the supporting documents, bring the legal heir on record and decide the appeal afresh through a speaking order, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The decision was pronounced on 12 August 2026 by Mahavir Singh, Vice President, and Krinwant Sahay, Accountant Member. The concluding administrative date of the order is 11 November 2026.
Background: Appellate Order Issued Years After the Assessee’s Death
The dispute arose from the NFAC’s appellate order dated 10 March 2026 for AY 2011–12.
The assessee, Shri Sampat, had died on 27 November 2020. Nevertheless, the appellate order was passed in his name, rather than in the name of his legal heir.
The appeal before the Tribunal was instituted through Smt. Risali, identified as the deceased assessee’s legal heir.
The sole issue argued before the Bench concerned the validity of the appellate order in these circumstances. The Tribunal’s short order does not describe the underlying additions or adjudicate their merits.
Assessee Challenged the Order Passed Against a Dead Person
Counsel submitted that the CIT(A)’s order could not be sustained because it had been passed against a person who was no longer alive.
The ground of appeal described the order as void ab initio and sought its quashing.
Counsel further submitted that the appellate authority should have brought Smt. Risali’s name on record as legal heir and passed the order accordingly.
The Departmental Representative did not controvert this factual contention. Thus, the assessee’s death before the appellate order and the need to address the proceedings through the legal heir remained undisputed before the Tribunal.
Tribunal Found the Appellate Order Unsustainable
The Tribunal examined the chronology and accepted the objection.
It specifically noted that the assessee’s death on 27 November 2020 had occurred much before the NFAC’s order dated 10 March 2026.
In that factual setting, the Bench held that passing the appellate order against the deceased assessee was not tenable.
The Tribunal accepted that the order should instead have been passed in the name of the legal heir after completing the necessary process of bringing her on record.
The finding therefore addressed the manner in which the appellate proceedings had been concluded, without expressing a view on the correctness of the disputed assessment.
Legal Heir’s Status Must Be Verified and Recorded
The Tribunal did not merely direct a change in the name appearing on the existing order.
It required the NFAC to verify the necessary documentary evidence and formally place Smt. Risali on record as the legal heir of Late Shri Sampat.
This distinction matters. The direction envisaged proper recognition of the person through whom the proceedings would continue, followed by a fresh examination of the appeal.
The Tribunal’s order does not enumerate the particular documents required. It leaves verification to the appellate authority in accordance with law.
Fresh Speaking Order After Adequate Opportunity
After bringing the legal heir on record, the NFAC was directed to consider the disputed issues afresh and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal also expressly required that adequate opportunity of being heard be granted to Smt. Risali.
The relief therefore involved both correction of the party representing the deceased assessee and a renewed opportunity to present submissions on the substantive dispute.
The earlier appellate order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the NFAC for this purpose.
The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes.
Remand Must Not Be Confused with Deletion of the Assessment
An important distinction emerges between the relief requested and the operative direction.
Although the ground of appeal sought quashing on the basis that the order was void, the Tribunal’s actual remedy was to set aside the appellate order and restore the issues for fresh adjudication.
It did not delete any assessment addition, cancel the underlying assessment or hold that the tax proceedings could no longer continue.
The legal heir obtained a fresh appellate hearing, while the substantive tax issues remained open.
Author’s Comments
The decision highlights the importance of keeping the appellate record updated when an assessee dies during pending proceedings. Recording the death, identifying the legal heir and ensuring that communications reach the appropriate person are essential practical steps.
For practitioners, the order is useful support against an appellate disposal made in the deceased person’s name. However, its scope should remain clear: it is an appellate remand decision, rather than a ruling finally extinguishing the underlying tax liability.
The most accurate description of the outcome is that the defective appellate order was set aside, the legal heir was directed to be brought on record after verification, and the merits were restored for a fresh, reasoned decision after hearing her.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 10.3.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12. The solitary issue argued in this appeal read as under:-
“That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned appellate order in the name of Late Sh. Sampat, despite the assessee having expired prior to the passing of the order, and, therefore, the impugned order being passed against a deceased person is void ab inito and liable to be quashed.”
2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been made on a dead person namely “Sampat”, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, however, it should be made in the name of legal heir namely Smt. Risali, after putting her name on record being legal heir of Late Shri Sampat. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR.
3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we find considerable force in the contention of the Ld. AR that impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed on a dead person on 10.03.2026, however, the assessee demise was occurred on 27.11.2020 i.e. much before passing of the appellate order by the NFAC, which is not tenable, because, the impugned order should be passed in the name of legal heir of Late Shri Sampat namely Smt. Risali. In view of above and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order of the NFAC and send back the issues in dispute to the file of the NFAC to consider the same afresh and pass a speaking order in the name of Legal Heir Smt. Risali, after verification of necessary documentary evidences and putting her name on record as legal heir of the assessee and also grant her adequate opportunity of being heard, in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.08.2026.
