IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.1300/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Late Priyank Narendrabhai Patel, Vs. ITO, Through his L/h Narendrabhai Patel, Ward – 2, At & Post – Tundi, Tal – Palsana, Bardoli Surat - 394315 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ASAPP4783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 28.10.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“Validity:

(1) The proceedings having been undertaken in the name of dead person are not legally sustainable.

(2) The statutory notice u/s 143(2) that enables to carry out assessment issued on dead person no assessment could have been undertaken without curing. and that the assessment order is required to be held non-est.

(3) All the notices u/s 142(1) having been issued on dead person, they are not legally valid.

(4) The Ld. CIT(A) order being issued on dead person is required to be quashed.

Merits:

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal rather than setting it aside.

(2) With the powers of the learned CIT(A) co-terminus with the Assessing Officer, he ought to have taken into consideration the evidence tendered before him.

Miscellaneous:

(1) All of the above grounds are prejudiced to one another.

(2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 05.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.11,18,990/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2016. In response, it was submitted that the assessee had died on 14.04.2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) asked the assessee to furnish reply, but there was no response from the assessee. The AO also issued show cause notice on 11.07.2017, but again there was non- compliance. Hence, the AO passed an ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.1,37,39,900/-, being the amount deposited in the bank accounts of various persons, as for the details in the table at para 5 of the assessment order.

4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He observed that since the assessee expired, the AO issued notices to the legal heir of the appellant. He set aside the order of AO passed u/s 144 for making a fresh assessment because the appellant had not furnished any documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings.

5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted two paper books containing 67 pages including copy of death certificate of Priyank N. Patel dated 14.04.2016 (Page 1 of PB), copy of notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show cause notices, letter dated 09.02.2022 to CIT(A), copies of cash flow summary and bank statements, ITR for previous 3 years and bank statements showing date-wise cash deposit and withdrawal. He submitted all the documents before the AO and CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the order is liable to be set aside both on jurisdictional and factual grounds. He submitted that the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 24.08.2016 on the assessee, who had expired on 14.04.2016. The intimation to this effect was given to the AO d