Notice u/s.148A(b) to deceased assessee invalidates reassessment; no jurisdiction without fresh notice to legal heir.

आदेश/ORDER

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee represented by legal heir is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 30.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2. The assessee is an individual and passed away on 06.07.2020. The A.O based on information received that there was cash deposits maintained in the IDBI Bank to the tune of Rs. 51,70,000/-, reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on the legal heir of the assessee. The A.O concluded the assessment by treating the entire amount as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, further appeal before the CIT(A) was filed by the assessee represented by the legal heir. There was a delay of 360 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.

3. There is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. With regard to the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the ld AR submitted that the legal heir was having some health issues and hence could not consult the professional to file the appeal in time. In this regard our attention was drawn to the medical certificate from Government doctor (page 26 of paper book) to substantiate the claim with regard to the health condition of the legal heir. Considering the facts and the evidences furnished, we are of the view that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

5. The Ld. AR raised a legal contention that the notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.04.2022 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee and that the legal heir who is son of the deceased assessee was compelled to accept the service of notice. The Ld. AR submitted that the legal heir was under the bonafide belief that since the assessee is deceased there is no liability to pay tax by him for his late father. In this regard we notice that the notice u/s.148A(b) which is extracted below is issued in the name of the deceased assessee.

6. We further notice that the A.O. while passing the order u/s.148A(d) has passed in the name of the legal heir. The relevant part of the order u/s.148A(d) is extracted hereunder –

7. We also notice that the A.O. though has passed the order in the name of the legal heir, did not issue any fresh notice u/s.148A(b) in the name of the legal heir, but has proceeded based on the notice issued in the name of deceased assessee which is served on the legal heir. Thus it is clear that the legal heir has been brought on record without serving a separate notice in the name of the legal heir and the reopening is based on the original notice issued in the name of dead person who has passed away much before the issue of notice u/s.148A(b). We in this regard notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT [2020] 426 ITR 502 (Delhi) has consid