LATE PARASMAL HANGAMILAL JAIN THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR, MRS. CHHAYA PARASMAL JAIN,RAIGAD V. ITD, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1064/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of the late Parasmal Hangamilan Jain against an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Panvel, for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessment was initially reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-filing of income tax returns and suspicious financial transactions linked to the deceased. The primary legal contention raised was the validity of the assessment order issued in the name of a deceased person, which the assessee argued was void ab initio. The CIT(A) / NFAC had previously restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication without addressing the legal validity directly, leading to this appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772150 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Motilal Hastimaji Bothra vs. ITO, Smt. Sowmya S. vs. ITO & Ors., Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani vs. PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: VIDHI SOLANI VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Unexplained investment; Validity of assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 263; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2013-14 Late Parasmal Hangamilan Jain through wife and legal heir Mrs. Chhaya Parasmal Jain Bazarpeth, At & Post Roha, Taluka Roha, Dist. Raigad – 402109 Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel PAN: AAPPJ5394K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Vidhi Solani (virtually) Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 19-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 26-08-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act, 1961 on 12.09.2021, in the name of a dead person was invalid by law and therefore void-ab-initio and was required to be quashed. The appellant prays that for the above stated reason the order of assessment be kindly quashed. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal/relief claimed at any time before the decision of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. Information available with the Department as per AIR that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for an amount of Rs.96,14,000/- and there was cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee and the assessee has not filed his return of income. The case of the assessee was therefore reopened as per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 09.03.2020 was issued electronically on the assessee’s e-mail registered with the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the said notice. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dt 30.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 were also issued by the JAO and served on the e-mail of the assessee electronically calling upon him to furnish the details required in connection with the reopened assessment proceedings. However, there was no compliance to the said notices. Subsequently, the Faceless Assessing Officer again issued notice u/s 142(1) dt 10.02.2021 asking the assessee to file certain details. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the said notice and subsequent notices issued thereafter, the FAO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,90,840/- by making the following additions: i) Unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A Rs.5,00,000/- ii) Unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 Rs.96,14,000/- iii) Unexplained expenditure towards stamp duty and registration charges u/s 69C Rs.5,76,840/- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the assessment order has been framed on a dead assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC after considering the various submissions made by the assessee restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the legal grounds raised before him challenging the validity of assessment on a dead assessee. Relying on the following decisions, she submitted that the assessment on a dead person is invalid: i) Motilal Hastimaji Bothra vs. ITO (2023) 108 ITR(T) 166 (Mumbai-Trib.) ii) Smt. Sowmya S. vs. ITO & Ors. vide W.P. No.25728 of 2023, order dated 19.06.2024 iii) Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (2020) 426 ITR 502 (Del) iv) Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani vs. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 30 (Rajkot-Trib.) 7. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motilal Hastimaji Bothra vs. ITO (supra), she submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assessee expired much prior to passing of reassessment order and issuance of notices and his legal heir was not brought on record and no notice was issued in name of legal heir, reassessment order framed Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 in name of assessee-deceased was non-est in the eyes of law and hence was to be quashed. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT (supra), she submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that in absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum of 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 assessee, said notice being invalid, was to be quashed. 9. Referring to the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani vs. PCIT (supra), she submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assessee expired while assessment order was being framed, in absence of any specific statutory provision under income tax law which would require legal heirs to intimate department about death of assessee, assessment order could not be held to be valid only for reason that legal heirs of deceased assessee had not informed about death of assessee, and thus such invalid assessment order could not be revised by taking recourse to section 263 proceedings. She accordingly submitted that since the assessment order has been framed on a dead assessee, therefore, such assessment order being invalid, should be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 10. In her alternate contention, she submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the legal grounds raised before him, therefore, she has no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the legal grounds raised before him. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that since the assessment order was passed ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has rightly restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue. 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 22.09.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,90,840/-. We find the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the assessment has been framed on a dead person. Although the assessee has taken a specific ground as per ground of appeal No.1 before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, however, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the legal ground raised before him but adjudicated the grounds on merit and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Since the assessee has taken a specific ground before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of assessment on account Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 of framing of the assessment order on a dead person and since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the legal ground raised before him which he was duty bound to do, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the legal ground raised before him as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 26th August, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1064/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 19.08.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.08.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "