IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jigar Bharat sheth (Legal Heir of vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(2), Late Shri Bharatkumar Manilal Mumbai.

sheth). Tower No. 6, 4^th Floor, 407, Vashi, 43, Savani Apartment, 8^th Floor, Navi Mumbai-400703.

M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077.

PAN/GIR No:AEDPS3883E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Nilesh Kariya Respondent by Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 08.09.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order u/s 143(3) dated

28.12.2017.

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

“1.The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) and Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in proceeding to pass the order u/s 143(3)

and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') in the name of the deceased person against the provisions of section 159 of the Act, hence, the order is null and void.

2. The Ld. AO erred in issuing notices u/s 143(2) in the name of deceased person despite informing the death of the Appellant before issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act to the Ld. AO by Legal heir of the Appellant in Violation of the provisions of section 159 of the Act, hence the proceeding is void ab initio.

3.The NFAC further erred in holding that the Appellant was alive at the time of making investment and filing ITR since the ITR was filed in the name of Appellant despite providing date of death in written submission and even after Ld. AO accepting in the Assessment Order that the Appellant died on 01.02.2015.

4.The Ld. AO and NFAC erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 54F and 54EC for investment made in the name of Jigar Sheth and Jyotiben Sheth as Legal Heir of the Appellant due to the want of Legal heir Certificate despite providing Affidavit cum Declaration sworn-in before Notary Officer declaring Jigar Sheth and Jyotiben Sheth is the Legal Heir of the Appellant.

5. The Ld. AO and NFAC erred in ignoring the documentary evidence (such as Passport, Aadhar Card, PAN card) produced to prove that Mr.

Jigar Sheth is the Legal Heir of the Appellant.

6. The Ld. AO erred in holding that the investment in House Property or in NHAI bond made by Mr. Jigar Sheth and Jyotiben Sheth is not from the sale consideration received on sale of land by the Appellant and therefore, in violation of condition prescribed u/s 54F/54EC, however, lower authorities ignored the fact that there is no such specific requirement under the provisions that the re-investment should be from sale proceeds only but it specifies that the investment to be made within time limit prescribed which Legal Heir of the Appellant has done it.

7. The Appellant prays to allow it to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,43,990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2016. After hearing the assessee, order u/s 143(3) was passed on 28.12.2017 in the name of Mr. Bharat Manilal Shah (Late) and not in the name of legal heir of the deceased assessee by making addition of Rs.1,44,12,514/- towards capital gain. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against such assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book containing 142 pages including notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.09.2016 in the name of Bharatkumar M