Shri Sunil Biloria vs The DCIT

The above captioned appeals are filed by the assessee, challenging the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively.

As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 869/Del/2026 as a lead case for the sake of convenience.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 73,69,040/- . The Assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on the information that the Assessee has claimed interest on the loan taken for purchase of immovable property as business expenditure and the same was disallowed during the assessment proceedings during the Assessment Year 2016-17 and the Assessee is also said to have claimed similar business expenditure from F.Y 2012-13 to F.Y 2015-16. The Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2021 along with other statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. Afte duly considering the assessee’s submission the Ld. A.O. passed the assessment order u/s 147 dated 24/03/2022 determining total income at Rs. 86,62,000/- after making an addition/disallowance of Rs. 12,92,966/-.

Aggrieved, the Assessee was in appeal before the firstappellateauthority who vide dated 12/11/2025 dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay of 88 days caused in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation.

The Assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before getting into the merits of the case, we deem it fit to decide the issue on the legal ground raised by the Assessee where the Assessee has challenged the assessment order which was passed in the name of the deceased person along with the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. Assessee's Representative for the Assessee (“for short “Ld. AR”) contended that notice was also not served upon the Assessee and though this issue was raised before the Ld. CIT(A) the same was not adjudicated. It is observed that the Assessee in the present case had expired on 26/09/2020 due to covid and the Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2021 in the name of the deceased Assessee even after his demise. The Ld. AR contended that even the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was not served on the e-mail id of the Assessee but was sent on wrong e-mail id. Further, the Ld. AR contended that despite the factthat the legal heir of the Assessee had intimated the Ld. A.O. about the demise of the Assessee in response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 14/12/2021, the Ld. A.O. proceeded to pass the assessment order in the name of the deceased person. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessee’s death certificate was also furnished to the Ld. A.O. along with the succession certificate which was requisitioned by the Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. erred in not passing the assessment order in the name of the legal heir. The Ld. AR also contended that though this issue was raised before the Ld. CIT(A), the first appellate authority failed to adjudicated on this issue and had merely dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without condoning the delay of 88 days which was duly explained with “sufficient cause”. The ld. AR prayed that the impugned assessment order be quashed on the legal ground and relied on various decisions in support of his contention.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR) on the other hand had nothing to controvert on this and relied extensively on the order of the lower authorities.

In the above factual matrix of the case, it is an undisputed fact that though the Ld. A.O. was well aware of the fact of the demise of the Assessee, he proceeded to pass the assessmentorder in the name of the deceased person. It is also evident that the Ld. A.O. has also recorded the fact that the death certificate along with the succession certificate was filed before him. We, therefore, confer that despite the knowledge of the demise of the Assessee, the Ld. A.O. proceeded to frame the assessment in the name of the deceased instead of impleading the legal representatives on record and continued the proceedings. It is now a settled proposition of law that the assessment against the dead person is nothing but an assessment against a non-existent person which is a jurisdictional defect going to the very root of the matter. Such a defect is not a mere procedural irregularity and cannot be cured by invoking Section 292B of the Act. The Ld. A.O. lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned assessment order in the name of the deceased, were the said principle stands affirmed by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Savita Kapila Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) dated 16/07/2020 and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki IndiaLimited, Civil Appeal No. 5409/2019,wherein it has been held that the proceeding against a non-existent person are voidab-initio, in capable of being cured by Section 292B of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order having been passed in the name of the deceased person is held to be without jurisdiction and void ab-initio. We, therefore, deem it fit to quash the impugned assessment order to be null and void. Since, the assessment itself has been annulled on this legal ground, the other grounds raised by the Assessee on merits are rendered academic.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed on the above observation.

The findings given in ITA No. 869/Del/2026 applies mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed.