IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai.

Before Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

ITA No. 3170/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) ITA No. 3171/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2012-13)

ITO-22(3)(1) Yakub Mohamed Ghantiwala Room No. 307, 3rd Floor Through Legal Heir of Late Piramal Chambers Vs. Yakub Mohamed Ghantiwala Lalbaug, Parel Bibi Yakub Mohamed Ghan Mumbai-400 012. Flat No. 303, 3rd Floor Building Name Reyhaan-2 Plot Bearing No. CTS No. 74/A,B Village Bandiwali Jogeshwari West Mumbai-400 0102. PAN : AABPG8470D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mohammad Shahab Khan Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary Date of Hearing : 26 /06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

For the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1 . Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order parsed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the sole ground that the notice under section 148 was issued in the name of a deceased person, despite the fact that the death of the assessee was never intimated to the Assessing Officer by any legal heir or authorised representative and the Assessing Officer had no means to ascertain such fact at the time of initiating reassessment proceedings.

2. Whether on the facts, and in circumstances of the case and in law, while allowing the assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the material fact that the legal heir never informed the department about the assessee’s death, not even after issuance of the impugned notice in the name of the assessee, nor challenged the validity of the impugned notice before the A.O.

2. Since the issue is common and facts are similar, both the appeals are clubbed, heard and a common order is passed.

3. In this case, for both the years, the issue is that the legal representative raised a basic question- whether the notice on a dead person is valid and whether consequential order passed has any legal sanctity. The Ld. AR of appellant has brought it to the notice of first appellate authority that the notice of reassessment under section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on her husband after five years of his death. The Ld. AR of appellant has submitted several cases-law for the proposition that notice on a deceased person is void ab-initio and all the consequential proceedings like making additions raising a tax demand, are invalid. The Ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration all these decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and held that in such circumstances, the issue of reassessment notice is invalid and hence all consequent proceedings are also invalid.

4. Aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order.

5. The Ld. DR relied on the grounds of appeal and submitted that the appellant should have intimated the Department that the appellant is no more. As there is no way to the Department to find out whether appellant is alive or not, the Ld. AO is correct in passing the assessment order under section 144 of the Act.

6. The Ld. AR of the appellant heavily relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A)

and various cases-law.

7. Heard both sides and perused the detailed written submissions and several cases-law filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant passed away on 12.9.2013, whereas the reassessment notice was issued on appellant on 26.3.2018. In the case of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (118 Taxman.com 46), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of a statutory provisions, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum on death of assessee to Department and, thus, where Assessing Officer issued a notice to assessee under Section 148 after his death and, in such a case, it could not have been validly served upon a