IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member ITA No. 752/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 Kushal Vinodkumar Bhatt The ACIT (OSD), Legal Heir of Late Shri Ward-5, Anand Vinodkumar Ramanlal Vs Bhatt Ambica Bhuban, Opposite Big Bazar, Anand, Vidyanagar Road, Anand-388001, Gujarat PAN: ACLPB2634C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R.

Revenue Represented: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.D.R.

Date of hearing : 25-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-06-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Legal Heir of the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exparte re-assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 96 days in filing the above appeal. The Legal Heir of the assessee filed a Notarized Affidavit stating that extensive discussions with Chartered Accountant on filing the above appeal on his deceased father name since it was setaside back to AO for de-nova assessment. More particularly, when the reopening notice u/s. 148 was issued on a deceased person. This has caused the delay in filing the appeal with a delay of 9 days and thereby requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no objection in condoning the delay thus the delay of 9 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee herein Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhatt was an individual and passed away on 11-02-2011. The assessee sold immovable properties amounting to Rs. 1,21,31,000/- on 26-08-2010 relevant to the Asst. Year 2011-12. However, the assessee has not filed Return of Income declaring the capital gain on sale of properties, which has escaped assessment. Therefore, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 dated 27-03-2018 in the name of the dead person Shri Kushal Vinodkumar Bhatt which was duly served by Post. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore the A.O. issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. In response the deceased assessee’s son informed that the Assessing Officer the death of his father by producing copy of the death certificate and also informed he does not know the various transactions carried out by his deceased father. The Assessing Officer called for information u/s.133(6)

from the Sub-Registrar, Anand and held that the Sale Deed bearing registration No. 8472 and 8473 of 2010 dated 26.08.2010 were signed by the Son in the capacity of Second party with others as Legal Representative of the assessee. Therefore, AO proceeded with the reassessment and taxed the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,21,31,000/- as the assessed income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. Thus, the AO mentioned in the assessment order Late Vinodkumar Ramanlal Bhatt Legal Heir: Kushal Vinod Bhatt.

4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with some delay which was condoned. The legal heir contented before CIT[A] that the reassessment order passed under section 144 rw.s. 147 for A.Y. 2011-12 is void ab initio. Since the notice issued under section 148, which confers jurisdiction for reassessment, was issued in the name of a deceased person, consequently the entire proceedings legally unsustainable. Despite being informed of the death of the assessee, the Ld AO failed to issue a fresh notice to the legal heir, violating Section 159(2)(b) of the Act. The legal heir never participated in the reassessment proceedings but merely requested the AO to drop the case due to the jurisdictional defect. Further, the delay in fil