LATE MR KIRITKUMAR RASIRLAL MEHTA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR UNCLE SUNIL SHAH),SANGALI V. ITO WARD 2(2), ITO WARD TWO(TWO)

ITA 424/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of the late Mr. Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta against the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were passed in the name of a deceased person. The primary contention was the validity of the notice under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order, both of which were issued after the death of Mr. Mehta. The Tribunal also considered the timing of the investments in mutual funds, which were made in a financial year not corresponding to the assessment year under dispute. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents from the Bombay High Court, which held that notices issued to deceased persons are null and void.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312467 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Devendra Vs. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 461 ITR 463 (Bom), Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi v. Asstt.CIT [2023) 151 taxmann.com 541/[Writ Petition No.10163 of 2022, dated 27-6-2023]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RATNAKAR SHELAKE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reopening of assessment; Notice on dead person
• Section: 148; 133(6); 6

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.424/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late MrKiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta (Through Legal Heir Sunil Shah), 1853 B Maruti Road, Islampur, U. Islampur, UrunIslampur S.O., Sanglil – 415409. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(2), Kolhapur. PAN: BRMPS9467D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 30/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Legal Heir of the diseased(Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta) is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 10.11.2024 for ITA No.424/PUN/2025 [A] 2 Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal : “1. That the AO by passing the order and Ld. CTT(A) confirming the order both have grossly erred in passing the order against the deceased person, who had died on 21-08-2009 and, as such, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT (A) null and void. 2. That since the above assessee had died even before the notice under section 148 was issued and, as such, the completion of assessment by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the name of deceased person is void ab initio and, thus, the assessment as framed deserves to be quashed. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, reasons to believe recorded for Notice u/s 148 are valid without considering the fact that the investment in mutual fund was done in FY 2008-09 (not falling within relevant year) and therefore, the notice, being based on incorrect information, is void ab initio thus the assessment is required to annulled as bad in law. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances in law AO and CIT(A) is correct in treating the investment u/s 69A when the source can be explained.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Neither any adjournment letter was submitted. Legal Heir had filed a paper book and written submission. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. ITA No.424/PUN/2025 [A] 3 Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2010-11 was issued on 29.03.2017. The Assessment Order was passed on 14.12.2017 for A.Y.2010-11 in the name of Shri Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta. 4.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee has filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur on 22.06.2018.ld.CIT(A) Kolhapur called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 04.11.2019. The Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward- 2(2), Kolhapur vide letter no.KOP/ITO,W-2(2)/Remand Report/2019-20 dated 21.11.2019 filed the Remand Report before ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur. The legal heir of the diseased Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta filed paper book which contains copies of the Remand Report at page no.20 to 22 of the paper book. 4.2 The relevant paragraphs of the Remand Report is reproduced here as under : “4.3. The validity of the Death Certificate has been verified from the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation's website. As per the website, it is seen that the assessee - (Late) Kirit Rasiklal Mehta, died at the age of 73 years at Lotus Hospital, Kolhapur. The Death Certificate is ITA No.424/PUN/2025 [A] 4 registered on 08.09.2009 under Registration No.4461. Screenshot of verification of data is placed on record after verification. …………….. 9. Considering the fact that the assessee has basically taken objection the Hon'ble CIT(A) for issue of Notice u/s 148 on dead person, provisions of section 1 59(2)/292BB and various judgments in this regard, the assessee's submission has force. 10. Without prejudice to the above, during appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed copies of extracts of statements of Principal PNB Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, wherein it is seen that the investment in the mutual fund had been done on 18.06.2008 and 17.06.2008 which fall in the AY 2009-10 and not AY 2010-11. On verification of records, it is seen that during the assessment proceedings, the AO had called for information u/s 133(6) from the Principal PNB Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The information was submitted by the said Company and the same are available on record. Further, as per ITS information generated through ITD module, it is seen that the assessee had purchased Mutual Fund of Rs.5,00,000/- on 18.06.2008 which falls in AY 2009-10 and not in AY 2010-11 under consideration. There is force in the assessee's submission.” 4.3 Thus, in the Remand Report the Assessing Officer, ITO,Ward- 2(2), Kolhapur has accepted that notice u/s.148 was issued in the name of a diseased Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta. The ITO further accepted that investment was made in F.Y. 2008-09 and therefore it cannot be taxed in A.Y.2010-11. However, ironically ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] ignored the Remand Report and confirmed the addition. Ironically, it is an admitted fact by the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order para 5 that Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta ITA No.424/PUN/2025 [A] 5 has expired, in spite of that Assessing Officer passed an order in the name of Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta. 4.4 No notice can be issued and served on diseased assessee. In this case, admittedly, notice u/s.148 was issued in the name of diseased assessee i.e.Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta. Mr.Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta has expired on 21.08.2009. Copy of Death Certificate is on record and this fact has been verified and confirmed by the Assessing Officer. 4.5 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Devendra Vs. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 461 ITR 463 (Bom) has held as under : “24. The Principal Seat of this Court has recently passed the order in Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi v. Asstt.CIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 541/[Writ Petition No.10163 of 2022, dated 27-6-2023] and has observed thatthe notice issued on dead persons is null and void. 25. For the reasons stated above and several High Courts have observed that the notice issued on dead personor re-opening of assessment of a dead person is null and void, this Court holds that the notice and allconsequential proceedings in the name of the deceased assessee are null and void and consequentially theimpugned notice dated 31-3-2021 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is quashed and set aside and allactions in furtherance thereto are prohibited. Hence, the petition is allowed.” 4.6 Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we hold that notice u/s.148 and the subsequent order ITA No.424/PUN/2025 [A] 6 u/s.147 passed in the name of diseased assessee is bad in law. Accordingly, the notice u/s.148 and order u/s.147 is quashed. 4.7 Even otherwise, the ITO in the Remand Report has certified that the investment was made in F.Y.2008-09 and hence, it cannot be taxed in A.Y.2010-11. Thus, the addition made in A.Y.2010-11 is bad in law. Therefore, grounds of appeal raised by the legal heir of the diseased are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DIPAK P.RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30th April, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एसएमसी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "