Tribunal held that the authorised representative for the assessee appearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) had intimated that the assessee had expired on October 10, 2016. After filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee had expired and on the day of passing of the first appellate order the assessee was no more alive. Counsel for the assessee could not intimate why amended form 35 was not filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) intimating the death of the assessee. The legal heirs of the assessee were not brought on record even before the Commissioner (Appeals). The authorised representative continuously appeared for the deceased assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) even after his death. The course was wholly impermissible and invalid under the law. Counsel could not appear for a dead person before the Commissioner (Appeals). Since revised form 35 was not filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) bringing the legal heirs of the assessee on record, the Commissioner (Appeals) under this mistaken belief passed the first appellate order in the name of the dead person without bringing the legal heir on record. Thus, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was entirely a nullity and void in law. Since the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the name of the dead person was a nullity and void in law, the appeal therefrom was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. However, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the matter in issue was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to the legal heir of the assessee to file amended form 35 before the Commissioner (Appeals) bringing the legal representatives on record after intimating the Commissioner (Appeals) about the death of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) may thereafter proceed in accordance with law giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, if the appeal is filed in accordance with law and rules.( AY.2013-14)