Late Palanisamy Gunasakaran Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Summary: ITAT Chennai quashed reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 because the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d), both dated 31.03.2024, were issued in the name of an assessee who had died on 09.07.2019. The Revenue contended that the legal representatives had not informed the Income Tax Department about the death and therefore the notice and consequential proceedings should remain valid.
The Tribunal rejected this contention by following the jurisdictional Madras High Court decision in Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO. The High Court had held that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable and that there is no statutory obligation requiring legal representatives to immediately inform the Department about the assessee’s death or cancel the deceased’s PAN.
It had further explained that Section 159 applies where proceedings were validly initiated while the assessee was alive and are thereafter continued against legal representatives; it cannot validate proceedings originally initiated against a deceased person. Such a defect is jurisdictional and is not a procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee’s death certificate and legal heir certificate established that his death occurred years before initiation of reassessment. Since the Assessing Officer did not initiate proceedings against the legal representatives in accordance with law, the Section 148 notice, Section 148A(d) order and consequential reassessment were held void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Ground No. 5 was therefore allowed and the remaining grounds on merits were treated as academic.
Cases Discussed
- Alamelu Veerappan v. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras) / [2018] 257 Taxman 72 (Madras), decided on 07.06.2018 — followed as the binding jurisdictional High Court decision for holding that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is unenforceable; non-intimation of death by legal representatives does not validate the notice, Section 159 does not apply where proceedings themselves were initiated after death, and the jurisdictional defect is not curable under Section 292B.
- Vipin Walia v. Income Tax Officer, (2016) 382 ITR 19 (Delhi High Court) — relied upon through Alamelu Veerappan for the proposition that where the assessee had died before issuance of the reassessment notice, the Department was required to issue a valid notice to the legal heirs within the statutory limitation period and could not cure the jurisdictional failure after limitation had expired.
- Rasid Lala v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), (2017) 77 taxmann.com 39 (Gujarat High Court) — referred to through Alamelu Veerappan for holding that reassessment initiated against a dead person is invalid and that even where Section 159 is sought to be invoked, the notice is required to be issued against and in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee.
- Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 280 ELT 43 (Delhi High Court) — relied upon through Alamelu Veerappan for the principle that an assessment framed against a non-existing entity/person involves a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the proceedings and is not a procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B.
- Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 396 (Allahabad High Court) — referred to in Alamelu Veerappan while considering whether proceedings against a non-existing person could be protected by Section 292B.
- Sky Light Hospitality LLP — distinguished in Alamelu Veerappan; errors concerning an incorrect name and PAN in otherwise valid proceedings were treated as curable in that case, unlike initiation of proceedings against a deceased person, which constitutes a jurisdictional defect.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
2. One of the legal issues (G.No.5) raised by the assessee vide grounds of appeal filed on 07.08.2025 is as under:
5) In view of this, the assessment framed on a deceased person is bad in law and not legally sustainable. It has been judicially held that no proceedings shall be initiated after demise of a person until the legal heir of the assessee is brought to record. For proper initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings, the AO should have initiated the proceedings by bringing in legal heir of the assessee.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee died on 09.07.2019.The notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) both dated 31.03.2024 has been issued by ITO, Ward 1(1), Salem.A copy of Notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) is enclosed in paper book page no 12 to 15.The ld.AR for the assessee contended that the assessment framed on a deceased person is bad in law and not legally sustainable. He further contended that no proceedings shall be initiated after demise of a person until the legal heir of the assessee is brought to record. A copy of death certificate and legal heir certificate is enclosed in paper book page no 3 to 6.In this connection he placed reliance on the decision of AlameluVeerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward- 2(2), Chennai [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras)/[2018] 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) [07-06-2018].. A copy of aforesaid decision is enclosed in paper book page no 7 to 11.
4. The ld.DR-CIT for the revenue contended that the LR’s of the assessee is/are duty bound to inform the Income Tax Department regarding demise of the assessee however never informed the revenue/department. Hence, he pleaded that the notice u/s.148 and consequential orders are valid in the eye of law.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras)/[2018] 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) [07-06-2018] at para 17 held as under:
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
14. The issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act issued in the name of the dead person – the said Mr.S.Veerappan is enforceable in law and the subsidiary issue being as to whether the petitioner, being the wife of the said Mr.S.Veerappan, can be compelled to participate in the proceedings and respond to the impugned notice. The fact that the said Mr.S.Veerappan died on 26.1.2010 is not in dispute. If this fact is not disputed, then the notice issued in the name of the dead person is unenforceable in the eye of law.
15. The Department seeks to justify their stand by contending that they were not intimated about the death of the assessee, that the legal heirs did not take any steps to cancel the PAN registration in the name of the assessee and that therefore, the Department was justified in directing the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice.
16. The settled legal principle being that a notice issued in the name of the dead person is unenforceable in law. If such is the legal position, would the Revenue be justified in contending that they, having no knowledge about the death of the assessee, are entitled to plead that the notice is not defective. In my considered view, the answer to the question should be definitely against the Revenue.
17. This Court supports such a conclusion with the following reasons: Admittedly, the limitation period for issuance of notice for reopening expired on 31.3.2017. The impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person. On being intimated about the death, the Department sent the notice to the petitioner – his spouse to participate in the proceedings. This notice was well beyond the period of limitation, as it has been issued after 31.3.2017. If we approach the problem sans complicated facts, a notice issued beyond the period of limitation i.e. 31.3.2017 is a nullity, unenforceable in law and without jurisdiction. Thus, merely because the Department was not intimated about the death of the assessee, that cannot, by itself, extend the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute. Nothing has been placed before this Court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee to immediately intimate the death of the assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration.
18. In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether Section 159 of the Act would get attracted. The answer to this question would be in the negative, as the proceedings under Section 159 of the Act can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs. The factual position in the instant case being otherwise, the provisions of Section 159 of the Act have no application.
19. The Revenue seeks to bring their case under Section 292 of the Act to state that the defect is a curable defect and on that ground, the impugned notice cannot be declared as invalid.
19. The Revenue seeks to bring their case under Section 292 of the Act to state that the defect is a curable defect and on that ground, the impugned notice cannot be declared as invalid.
20. The language employed in Section 292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act.
21. All the above reasons are fully supported by the decision in the case of Vipin Walia. In that case, the notice dated 27.3.2015 was issued under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee, who died on 14.3.2015. The validity of the said notice was put to challenge. The Income Tax Officer took a stand that since the intimation of death of the assessee on 14.3.2015 was not received by her, the notice was issued on a dead person. However, the fact regarding the death of the assessee could not be disputed by the Department. The Department continued the proceedings under Section 147/ 148 of the Act and at that stage, the son of the deceased approached the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi pointed out that what was sought to be done by the Income Tax Officer was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act against the deceased assessee for the assessment year 2008-09, for which, the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was 31.3.2015 and on 02.7.2015 when the notice was issued, the assessee was already dead and if the Department intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act, it could have done so prior to 31.3.2015 by issuing the notice to the legal heirs of the deceased and beyond that date, it could not have proceeded in the matter even by issuing notice to the legal representatives of the assessee. The decision in Vipin Walia fully supports the case of the petitioner herein.
22. The decision in the case of Vipin Walia was followed in the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rasid Lala, in which, the re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the dead person, that too, after a long delay. The Court pointed out that even if the provisions of Section 159 of the Act are attracted, in that case also, the notice was required to be issued against and in the name of the heirs of the deceased assessee and under the said circumstances, Section 159 of the Act shall not be of any assistance to the Revenue.
23. In the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd., one of the questions, which fell for consideration, is as to whether such framing of assessment against a non existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. CIT [reported in (2006) 280 ITR 396], it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person.
24. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has sought to distinguish the decision in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd., by referring to Sky Light Hospitality LLP.
25. On a perusal of the factual position therein, the Court came to the conclusion that the defect was curable because it was held that the notice was not addressed to the correct name and that the PAN mentioned was also incorrect. The factual background was taken into consideration and the Court held that errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify the proceedings, which are otherwise valid and that no prejudice had been caused, as this being the mandate of Section 292B of the Act. The decision in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP is clearly distinguishable on facts and it does not support the case of the Revenue.
26. For all the above reasons, this court holds that the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced against the petitioner.
27. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.
6. The undisputed facts are that the assessee expired on 09.07.2019. However, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the order passed u/s. 148A(d), both dated 31.03.2024, were issued in the name of the deceased assessee. The assessee has placed on record the death certificate and legal heir certificate evidencing the demise of the assessee much prior to the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
7. The contention of the Revenue is that the legal representatives had not informed the Department regarding the death of the assessee and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice in the name of the assessee. We are unable to accept the said contention.
8. The issue is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court inAlameluVeerappan v. ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras). The Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable in law and that the absence of intimation regarding the death of the assessee would not validate such a notice. The Hon’ble Court further held that there is no statutory obligation cast upon the legal representatives to immediately intimate the Department regarding the death of the assessee or to cancel the PAN registration. It was also held that section 159 of the Act would apply only where proceedings had already been initiated during the lifetime of the assessee and thereafter continued against the legal representatives. Where the very initiation of proceedings is against a deceased person, section 159 has no application.
9. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the defect is not a procedural irregularity curable under section 292B of the Act but a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the matter, as no valid proceedings can be initiated against a dead person. Consequently, any notice issued in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio and all consequential proceedings founded thereon are liable to be quashed.
10. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee had expired on 09.07.2019, whereas the notice under section 148 and the order under section 148A(d) were issued only on 31.03.2024 in the name of the deceased assessee. Thus, the very initiation of reassessment proceedings is against a non-existent person. The Assessing Officer did not initiate proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in AlameluVeerappan (supra),we hold that the notice issued under section 148 and the consequential proceedings, including the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto, are void ab initio, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings on the legal ground itself, the other grounds raised on merits become academic and do not require adjudication.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court 02 day of June, 2026 in Chennai.
