Assessments against deceased individuals are void ab initio as jurisdiction lies only with their legal representatives.

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 06.08.2024 for A.Y 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised six substantive grounds of appeal. Vide Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction and further erred in framing assessment on a dead person. Vide the other grounds, the assessee has challenged the disallowances made in the assessment order.

3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

4. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that Shri Satish Mehta died on 10.11.2016. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that assessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s143(2) dated 07.09.2018 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] in the name of dead assessee, Satish Mehta. Even the notice u/s.142(1) Dtd.05.08.2019 is issued in the name of dead assessee i.e. Satish Mehta. Further the assessment order dated 13.12.2019 is also in the income of Shri Satish Mehta. The ld AR argued that as the notices were issued in the name of dead assessee i.e. to "Satish Mehta" and hence notice issued in the name of dead person is non est/illegal notice. No legal valid jurisdiction can be assumed on the basis of notice u/s143(2) in the name of dead person. Therefore, the initiation of assessment proceedings being non est and illegal, the whole assessment proceedings including assessment order are illegal and needs to be quashed.

5. The ld AR further argued that the assessment order has also been addressed to "To, Satish Mehta" and hence assessment order has also been framed in the name of dead person by treating him as the assessee. It is the say of the ld AR that in the case of dead person, the assessee is only the legal representative and not the dead person, as is evident from section 159 of the Act which says that in case of deceased, the legal representative shall be the assessee. The ld AR submitted that here the legal representative is his son Sh. Kapil Mehta, hence the assessee should be "Kapil Mehta" and not Late Satish Mehta.Hence, Sh. Kapil Mehta is the legal representative, he is liable to pay tax relating to Lt. Satish Mehta, therefore, as per definition of assessee in Sec.2(7) Sh. Kapil Mehta is to be deemed as an assessee. In the instant case, the A.O. has treated deceased Satish Mehta as an assessee and framed assessment treating Satish Mehta as an assessee while in this case only Sh. Kapil Mehta is the deemed assessee U/s.2(7) of the Act. Thus, complete asstt. is without jurisdiction and consequential asstt. order is liable to be quashed. The ld. AR once again stated that the assessment has been framed in the name of a non-est person and the CIT(A) has grossly erred in not annulling the assessment order. The ld. AR drew our attention to various judicial decisions wherein the Hon'ble High Courts have held that assessment framed on a non-existent person is void ab initio.

6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The ld DR argued that the Department was not informed of the death of the assessee and therefore the notices were issued in the name of the deceased person.

7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee died on 10.11.2016. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) as well as the assessment order was framed on late Satish Mehta. The provision of section 159 of the Act provides for assessment proceedings of deceased person to be made against the legal representative who would be the deemed assessee.

8. In the instant cas