O R D E R

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity “the Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 25.09.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai [for brevity, the “Ld. AO”], order passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 29.03.2024.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed by issuing notice under section 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR challenged that the Ld. AO issued the notice on the deceased person. As the assessee was diedon 18.11.2016 and the notice was duly issued to the said deceased person. So the notice was served in the name of deceased person is illegal. So, the assessment is liable to be quashed. The issue was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the assessee’s claim and quashed the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us.

3. The Ld. DR argued that there is no information before the Ld. AO about the death of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and stated that the impugned assessment order cannot be quashed on the basis of the notice served in the name of dead person. In fact the assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO inserting the legal heir of the assessee. Following the argument, the Ld. DR filed the factual report of Ld. ITO 28(3)(1), Mumbai. Relevant part of the said report in para no. 2.3 to 4 is reproduced as below:

“2.3. The Ld. CIT (A) has quashed the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2024 as being without jurisdiction and has held as under:

(i) Notices u/s 148A (b), 148A (d), and 148 issued in the name of Late Smt. Ms. Varsha More are void ab initio.

(ii) Such defect is not curable under section 292B nor by subsequent substitution of legal heirs u/s 159.

(iii) Further, the notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless unit, contrary to section 151A and CBDT Notifications.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai vide ITA No. 7296/Mum/2025. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee has filed certain details and additional grounds The additional ground raised by the assessee mainly pertains to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the deceased person and therefore, the assessee has requested to treat the notice as void ab initio.

3. In this case, it is noted that notice u/s 148A (b) and notice u/s 148 was issued in the name of Ms. Varsha More on 17.02.2023 and 25.03.2023 respectively as the legal heir of the assessee had submitted no information with the Income Tax Department that the assessee Varsha More is a deceased individual. The said information was not submitted even during the course of proceedings initiated u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The department came to know about the demise of the assessee Varsha More only when return was filed by the legal heir of Ms. Varsha More in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, subsequent proceedings and assessment order was completed in the name of legal heir Further, the assessee has never raised this issue during the assessment proceedings. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable on merit as the legal heir of assessee failed to inform the department about the demise of Ms. Varsha Pramod More

4. With regard to the submission of the assessee on the ground that the notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless unit, contrary to section 151A and CBDT Notifications, it is noted that the Revenue has filed SLP on this ground in the case of M/s Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and the matter is pending for adjudication. Hence, in order to maintain consistency in stan