Assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without notifying legal heirs are void.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 910/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05-08-2025

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 04/03/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16 and raised the following grounds:

“A. GENERAL GROUNDS:

1. The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case B. LEGAL GROUNDS:

2. The appellate order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the CIT(A) upholding the assessment order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the assessing officer under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is bad in law in as much as the same is passed in the name of a dead person and hence is non est and void.

3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under section 147 were initiated against a dead person and hence the entire proceedings are non-est and void and deserved to be quashed.

4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had expired on 19th May 2019 which was intimated to the Income Tax Department and the details of the legal representative were updated in the Income Tax portal. appeal against the ex-parte order of the AO was filed by the representative assessee.

5. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.

6. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds challenging validity of the assessment proceedings initiated by the AO against a dead person.

7. Without prejudice to the above, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 148 read with section 148A of the Act are bad in law.

C. GROUNDS IN RELATION TO COMPUTATION OF LONG-

TERM CAPITAL GAINS ("LTCG"):

8. The CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in computing LTCG of Rs.59,53,488/-.

9. The CIT(A) and AO erred in not appreciating that the proceeds from the sale of property were reinvested by the Appellant and hence, there was no taxable capital gains.

10. The CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering the cost of improvement incurred by the Appellant while computing the capital gains.

11. The CIT(A) and AO erred in initiating proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act for receipt or Rs.19,20,000/- in cash without appreciating that the amendment to section 269SS prohibiting receipt of any sum in cash in relation to transfer of immovable property was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015 and was not applicable for AY 2015-16.

D. CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS:

12. The Ld AO erred in charging interest under section

234A and 234B of the Act.

13. The Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act.

Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above grounds of appeal”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Based on the information available with the department it was found that the assessee had sold an immovable property fo