IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

ACIT-CC-7(3) Vs. ^{RanibenKhimji Patel} R. No. 655, (Legal Heir of Shri

6^thfloor,Aayakar Bhavan, KhimjiKaramshi M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 Patel), 020 602, 6^th floor, Petit Tower, August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Mumbai-400 026 PAN/GIR No. AADPP8816G (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ld. AR Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM:

This appeal by revenue is directed against the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-49, Mumbai (herein after referred as “Ld. CIT(A)” u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”), whereinLd. CIT(A) has set aside the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 on the ground that the assessment order issued against a dead person is a nullity.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding before the authorities below are that the assessee was running proprietary concern in the name of M/s Trishul Developers which was into the business of construction and development of residential and commercial properties. In addition, the assessee also used to run a grocery store in the name of M/s RatilalHirji& Co. The assessee filed the return of income on 22.10.2019 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and business loss carried forward of Rs. 62,25,780/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.03.2021 and notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.09.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee electronically, calling on various information and documents. It is alleged that in response to the notices issued, submissions from time to time were uploaded and the details were verified and placed on record wherein addition of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act alongwith addition u/s 69C of the Act were made and demand was raised. The penalty proceedings were also initiated separately.

3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the respondent herein who is the wife of deceased assessee as legal heir challenged the order u/s 250 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). It was alleged before the Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned assessment order is nullity and the same has been passed against the deceased person. It was further alleged that the assessee died on 02.03.2021 and the same was intimated to the Ld. AO vide letter dated 15.04.2021 and it was also intimated that Smt. RanibenKhimji Patel, appellant was the legal heir of the deceased assessee as per will of the deceased assessee. It was further stated that after the death of the assessee, the notice pertaining to assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) were sent to the email ID and the income tax portal of the deceased assessee instead of the legal heir i.e. Smt. RanibenKhimji Patel and hence the notices issued after the death of assessee on 02.03.2021 were null and void ab initio. Vide letter dated 15.04.2021, the demise of assessee was intimated to the Ld. AO and also was uploaded on the income tax portal in reply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 12.04.2021 and despite having the knowledge of the death of the assessee, the AO mentioned the notice in the name of the deceased assessee and has passed the assessment order in the name of deceased assessee.

4. It was further brought to the notice by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of the appellant has quashed the notice u/s 148 issued for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 on the ground that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act against the deceased person was void ab initio. After considering the submission of the appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has noticed that the legal heir of the assessee i.e. the present appellant has duly intimated to the AO about the death of the assessee i.e. Late Shri KhimjiKaramshi Patel