2025 (5) TMI 1659 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment order under section 68 quashed after notice issued to deceased assessee deemed null and void

Abbas Khan, (through legal heir Mr. Iqbal Khan) Versus National Faceless Appeal Centre/Income-tax Officer 41 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai quashed an assessment order passed under section 68 after reopening proceedings. The notice under section 148 was issued in the name of a ... Reopening of assessment - order in the name of the deceased assessee - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, reveals that the said notice was issued in the name of a deceased person and is therefore null and void in law, and liable to be quashed. See Gene Gracious [2024 (12) TMI 779 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. We find that, in light of the binding precedents in Ghanshyam A Dhanani [2023 (7) TMI 1506 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the jurisdictional High Court, there is no option but to quash the assessment order passed by the AO, which has been rendered without legal authority - Decided in favour of assessee. The core legal issues considered in this appeal are:1. Whether the addition of Rs. 42,22,616/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the amount as unexplained income, was justified and valid.2. Whether the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act was appropriate.3. Whether the assessment proceedings, including the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, were valid given that the assessee had died prior to the initiation of reassessment proceedings.4. Whether the impugned order passed in the name of the deceased assessee is legally sustainable.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisValidity of the addition under section 68 of the ActThe Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 42,22,616/- under section 69A of the Act (which deals with unexplained investments), treating the amount as income that escaped assessment. This addition was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee, represented by the legal heir, challenged this addition on the ground that the AO made the addition without any cogent basis or proper enquiry, relying solely on the absence of documentary evidence relating to sales, purchases, and business transactions.The legal heir submitted detailed information regarding purchases and sales during the relevant year, including purchases from reputable entities such as the Central Government Controller of Stores Office, SR Asset Financial Advisor Workshop and Stores, and Nuclear Power Corporation of India, amounting to Rs. 21,11,308/-. These transactions were reflected in the Form 26AS and profit and loss account, thereby establishing the genuineness of the business dealings. The AO, however, disregarded these facts and made the addition without adequate material evidence.Although the addition was challenged on merit, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the substantive validity of the addition due to the overriding legal issue related to the validity of the reassessment proceedings themselves, as discussed below.Validity of the reassessment proceedings and notice under section 148 issued in the name of a deceased assesseeThe pivotal legal question was whether the notice under section 148 of the Act, issued on 28.03.2019, was valid when the assessee had died on 09.12.2017, prior to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The legal heir contended that the entire reassessment process conducted in the name of the deceased was invalid and void ab initio.The Court examined relevant judicial precedents, notably the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Ghanshyam A Dhanani vs ITO, which emphasized that proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased person are vitiated and cannot be cured merely by the subsequent participation of legal representatives. The Court also relied on the Bombay High Court ruling in Gene Gracious vs ITO, which held that issuance of notices and initiation of proceedings against a deceased person violate fundamental principles of natural justice and are non-est and void ab initio.The Gene Gracious decision further clarified that the procedural safeguards under section 148A of the Act, including issuance of a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing before issuance of a notice under section 148, cannot be complied with when the assessee is deceased, rendering such notices and consequent assessments invalid. The Court noted that in the present case, the reassessment notice and subsequent proceedings were initiated well after the death of the assessee, and no valid legal opportunity was afforded to the legal heirs before the initiation.Consequently, the Court held that the notice under section 148 and the assessment order passed by the AO were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The addition of Rs. 42,22,616/- made in the assessment was therefore deleted.Interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234CSince the Court quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the addition, the interest charged on the basis of the reassessment became academic. The Court did not adjudicate on the validity of the interest charges.Impugned order passed in the name of the deceased assesseeThe legal heir raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the impugned order being passed in the name of the deceased assessee. The Court agreed that passing orders and notices in the name of a deceased person without involving the legal heirs or proper substitution is legally impermissible. This ground was subsumed within the broader issue of validity of reassessment proceedings and notice issuance, which the Court found decisive.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid as they were initiated in the name of a deceased person. The notice under section 148 was void ab initio, and consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The addition of Rs. 42,22,616/- was deleted. The Court did not find it necessary to decide other grounds, including the interest charges, as they became academic.Significant HoldingsThe Court emphasized the principle that 'a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose rights or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.' It held that this principle cannot be satisfied when proceedings are initiated against a deceased person. The Court quoted from the Bombay High Court in Gene Gracious:'Once Mr. Gene Gracious is a dead person there was no question of his defending such action or being heard so as to accord any sanctity to such order, and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The entire action under clause (b) and clause (d) of Section 148A of the IT Act were of no consequence being non-est. In this situation even the legal heirs cannot be bound by such order which is non-est, void ab initio.'The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Ghanshyam A Dhanani that 'the proceedings in fact are vitiated on account of the initial Notices being issued in the name of a dead person and the subsequent participation of the legal representatives in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer would not have cured the initial defect.'Finally, the Court held that the Revenue is not precluded from issuing a fresh notice for reassessment against the legal heirs in accordance with law, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Act and limitation periods.