IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8815/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2020-2021)

Mohammad Umar Abdul Hasan Khan (through legal heir wife Haseena Bano)

Sanjay Nagar, Opp. Ram Mandir, Nawapur, Palghar, Mumbai – 401501. Maharashtra.

[PAN: AWWPK1416A] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Palghar Chintupada Road, Udhyog Nagar, Palghar – 401404. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Kirit Sheth For the Respondent/Department : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Date Conclusion of hearing : 19.02.2026 Pronouncement of order : 24.02.2026

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the legal heir of the deceased Assessee is directed against the order, dated 18/09/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed off the appeal setting aside the Assessment Order, dated 03/12/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2020-2021.

2. The present appeal is delayed by 18 days. On perusal of application seeking condonation of delay and accompanying affidavit, we find that the delay was caused on account of difficulty faced by legal heir, being the wife of the deceased Assessee living in Boisar, in communicating with the tax consultant. In our view, the delay in filing the appeal was inadvertent and bonafide. Accordingly, we hold that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the present appeal.

3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since all the notices and orders are in the name of deceased assessee even though the Department had the knowledge of the demise of the assessee.

4. Per Contra, the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has already set-aside the assessment with the directions to the Assessing Officer to frame denovo assessment.

5. In rejoinder, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate upon the jurisdictional challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record.

7. A Perusal of death certificate placed on record shows that Assessee expired on 21/04/2022. The wife of the deceased Assessee had registered herself as Representative Assessee on 12/08/2022. On perusal of the Assessment Order we find that (a) Order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 15/03/2024, (b) notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 15/03/2024, and (c) Assessment Order was passed on 03/12/2024. The aforesaid notices and orders were in the name of ‘Mohammad Umar Abdul Hasan Khan’ who had expired on

21/04/2022.

8. During the course of hearing the Authorised Representative for the Assessee had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amjad Ahmed Shaikh vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 172 taxmann.com 687 (Bombay)/[2025] 304 Taxman 377 (Bombay)[04-03-2025]. In that case the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, in identical facts and circumstances, quashed the assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person holding as under:

“6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

7. The record shows that Late Ahmed Gulamnabi Shaikh, the assessee expired on 13 August 2016. Even the death certificate is placed on record. The records also show that Samad Shaikh, the son of Late Ahmed Gulamnabi Shaikh informed the Income-tax Officer, Ward 22(1) (1), Mumbai about