ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Because Section 148 Notice Was Issued to Deceased Assessee

Neeraj Kataria, Legal Heir of Ram Parkash Kataria Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi concerned the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased assessee. The appeal was filed by the legal heir of Late Neeraj Kataria against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 22.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2019-20.

The case arose after the Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had received enhanced compensation and interest from the Land Acquisition Officer on compulsory acquisition of land. Based on this information, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of Neeraj Kataria. However, the assessee had already expired on 31.12.2016.

Subsequently, the AO completed the reassessment under Sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Act. The assessment determined taxable income by adding ₹3,65,47,361 as interest on enhanced compensation received on acquisition of land. The amount was treated as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viii) after allowing deduction under Section 57.

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings, arguing that an assessment cannot be framed against a deceased person. It was submitted that once a person dies, their legal personality ceases to exist and any notice or assessment issued in the name of the deceased person becomes invalid. The assessee relied on several judicial precedents to support the contention that notices issued to deceased persons are void and unenforceable.

The Commissioner (Appeals) did not quash the assessment but sustained the addition. The appellate authority observed that a return had been filed in response to the notice under Section 148 declaring nil income and that the legal heir had not explained who filed the return. It was also noted that the legal heirs had not informed the tax department about the death of the assessee. Based on these observations, the CIT(A) held that the assessment could be reframed against the legal heir.

Before the Tribunal, the central issue was whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a deceased person was valid in law, and whether such a defect could be cured by participation in proceedings, filing of return, or by invoking Section 292B.

The Tribunal examined the statutory framework governing reassessment proceedings. Under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, reassessment can be initiated only after issuing a valid notice to the assessee. Section 159 provides that in case of death of a person, proceedings may be initiated or continued against the legal representative. However, notice must be issued to the legal representative and not in the name of the deceased person. Section 292B protects proceedings from technical defects but does not cure fundamental jurisdictional defects.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had died on 31.12.2016, whereas the notice under Section 148 was issued subsequently in the name of the deceased person. Since the notice initiating reassessment was issued to a dead person, it was void ab initio and lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction to reopen an assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or the legal representative of the deceased.

The Tribunal further held that legal heirs are not under a statutory obligation to inform the income tax department about the death of the assessee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila v. ACIT, which held that there is no legal duty on the part of legal representatives to intimate the death of the assessee.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that filing a return or participating in the reassessment proceedings could cure the defect. It held that the defect was jurisdictional in nature and therefore could not be validated by participation in proceedings. Similarly, the Tribunal held that Section 292B cannot cure a foundational defect such as issuing notice to a non-existent person.

The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents including decisions of the Delhi High Court, Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court and Bombay High Court, which consistently held that notices issued under Section 148 in the name of deceased persons are invalid and all consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 in the name of Late Neeraj Kataria was invalid. Since the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of such invalid notice, the entire reassessment and consequential assessment order were illegal and void ab initio.

Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequential reassessment order passed under Sections 147/144. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Statutory Framework

Section 147 – Income Escaping Assessment:- Section 147 empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess income that has escaped assessment. However, the jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice under section 148 is issued.

Section 148 – Issue of Notice:- Before making reassessment under section 147, the AO must serve a notice requiring the assessee to furnish a return of income.

The validity of reassessment proceedings depends upon valid issuance of notice to the correct person.

Section 159 – Legal Representative;-Where a person dies:

The legal representative becomes liable to pay tax of the deceased.

Proceedings may be initiated or continued against the legal representative.

However, notice must be issued to the legal representative, not in the name of the deceased person.

Section 292B – Return, notice etc. not invalid due to technical defect

Section 292B saves proceedings from minor technical defects, provided the notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the Act.

However, courts have consistently held that:

Issuing notice to a dead person is not a procedural defect but a jurisdictional defect.

Such defect cannot be cured under section 292B.

Section 2(31) – Definition of “Person” The term “person” includes an individual.

An individual must be a living human being, therefore a deceased person cannot be treated as a person under the Act.

2. Facts of the Case

The assessee Late Neeraj Kataria expired on 31.12.2016. The AO received information that the assessee had received enhanced compensation and interest on compulsory acquisition of land.

Based on this information:

Notice under section 148 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee.

Reassessment was completed under:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B

Addition made: Rs 3,65,47,361 Being interest on enhanced compensation taxed under section 56(2)(viii).

3. Order of CIT(A):-The CIT(A)/NFAC did not quash the assessment, but Sustained the addition.

Observed that:

A return was filed in response to the notice.The legal heir failed to explain who filed the return.

Legal heirs did not inform the department about the death of the assessee.

Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the assessment could be reframed on the legal heir.

4. Issue before the Tribunal

Whether: A reassessment notice issued under section 148 in the name of a deceased person is valid in law?

And whether such defect can be cured by:

• filing of return,
• participation in proceedings,
• or section 292B.

5. Reasoning of the Tribunal

The ITAT observed the following principles:

1. Notice issued to dead person is void

The jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or legal representative.

Since the notice was issued in the name of a deceased person, it is void ab initio.

2. No duty on legal heirs to inform death

Relying on Delhi High Court judgment in Savita Kapila, the Tribunal held: There is no statutory obligation on legal representatives to inform the department about the death of the assessee.

Therefore, failure to intimate death cannot validate an illegal notice.

3. Participation or filing return cannot cure defect Even if:

• a return was filed, or
• proceedings were responded to,
• the defect remains jurisdictional.

Thus the proceedings cannot be validated.

4. Section 292B cannot cure fundamental defect

Section 292B cures technical defects but cannot cure: lack of jurisdiction, or notice issued to a non-existent person.

6. Decision of the Tribunal
The Tribunal held:

Notice issued under section 148 in the name of deceased person is invalid.

The entire reassessment proceedings become void.

The assessment framed under section 147/144 is illegal and void ab initio.

Accordingly: Notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment were quashed.

Gist of cases : Savita Kapila v. ACIT Citation: (2020) 118 taxmann.com46 (Delhi)

Held: Notice issued under section 148 to a deceased assessee is invalid. There is no statutory obligation on the legal heirs to intimate the death of the assessee to the Income Tax Department.

Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer-2022) 441 ITR 462 (Delhi) Held:-Notice issued under section 148 to a dead person is null and void. All subsequent proceedings including the assessment order passed under section 144 are liable to be set aside.

Alamelu Veerappan v. Income Tax Officer:-2018) 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras). Held:  Notice issued in the name of a dead person is not enforceable in law. Legal representatives are not under statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the department.

Rashid Lala v. Income Tax Officer. 2017) 77 taxmann.com 39 (Gujarat)

Held: Even if section 159 applies, the notice must be issued to the legal heir. Notice issued in the name of the deceased assessee is invalid and reassessment cannot proceed.

Brahm Prakash v. Income Tax Officer. 2005) 275 ITR 242 (Delhi).

Held: Notice under section 148 issued to a deceased person cannot be served and therefore subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings are invalid.

Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Income Tax Officer 2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat).

Held: Notice issued under section 148 against a deceased person is invalid unless the legal heir submits to jurisdiction without objection.

Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay)

Held: For reopening assessment, notice must be issued to a living person or legal representative. Section 292B cannot cure a foundational jurisdictional defect such as issuing notice to a deceased person

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This appeal is filed by the assessee Neeraj Kataria represented by Legal Heir Sh. Ram Prakash Kataria against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.07.2025 for the A.Y.2019-20.

2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) erred in only setting aside but not quashing the illegal assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on a deceased person.”

3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee Late Neeraj Kataria expired on 31.12.2016 thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings u/s.147 based on certain information that the assessee received enhanced compensation and interest on acquisition of lands by the land acquisition officer and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on the assessee who is a dead person. The AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w. 144 r.w. 144B of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,65,47,361/- by assessing the interest on enhanced compensation on the acquisition of lands, under the head income from other sources after issuing several notices.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there cannot be an assessment on a dead person and therefore, the assessment framed on a dead person is void ab initio. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the detailed submissions made before Ld. CIT(A) were completely ignored by the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal and sustaining the addition.

5. On the other hand the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. DR further referring to page -9 para 6.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) order submitted that in response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act a return was uploaded for current assessment year on 28.09.2020 declaring nil income. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition since the legal heir of the assessee could not explain as to who has filed the return and why the return was filed when the assessee deceased long back. The Ld. DR submitted that the legal heir of the assessee also did not inform the AO about the death of the assessee, late Neeraj Kataria. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) is justified in setting aside the assessment for reframing the assessment on the legal heir of the Assessee.

6. In rebuttal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (118 com 46) submitted that the Hon’ble High Court held that in absence of statutory provision duty cannot be cast upon legal representative to intimate factum of death of the assessee to the department. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that simply because the legal heirs of the assessee Late Neeraj Kataria did not inform the revenue department that the assessee had expired the notices issued u/s.148 and the assessment completed pursuant to such notice on the deceased assessee cannot be validated.

7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further furnished a copy of submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) which is as under :-

2. The brief facts are that the assessee, Mr. Ram Parkash Kataria, was an agriculturist. He expired on 31.12.2016. Ld. Assessing Officer initiated. proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) based on the information that the assessee received enhanced compensation and interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 of Rs. 3.90.29,900/-from the Land Acquisition Officer on compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land in earlier years. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in the name of Sh. Ram Parkash Katana on 24 03.2023 for A.Y. 2019-20. However, the Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that on verification it was noticed that the assessee received interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 7,30,94,722/-The impugned assessment was made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 06.03.2024, wherein an addition of Rs. 3,65,47,361/- on account of interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act was made treated as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viii) rw.s. 57(iv) of the Act. Aggrieved with the impugned assessment order this appeal was filed taking the following grounds of appeal

“1. That the Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law and on facts as the order u/s 147 of Income Tax Act 1961 is being against a deceased person

2. That the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment breaching the concept of natural justice and without providing opportunity of being heard.

3. That the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making an addition amounting to Rs. 3,65,47.361/- on account of interest income under Head “Other Sources on account of Interest Income on account of Compensation on Compulsory Acquisition of agricultural land, although being Exempt Income u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

4. That the assessee reserves the right to amend delete, add. substitute, modify or alter any one or more of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

The submission on the above grounds of appeal is furnished hereinunder

Ground No. 1: 3

3.1 This ground is against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) and consequent assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 06.03.2024 for A.Y. 2019-20, which are ab-initio void and illegal.

3.2 It is an admitted fact that Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for A Y. 2019-20 on 24.03.2023 and the impugned assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 06.03.2024. The assessee, Mr. Ram Parkash Kataria, expired on 31.12.2016. Thus, the impugned notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2019-20 was issued in the name of dead person and the impugned assessment order was also passed in the name of the deceased person, which are not legally valid.

3.3 It is a trite law that a notice under section 148(1) issued in the name of the deceased will be invalid. It is because the expression ‘person’ used in section 2(31)(1) refers to ‘individual who has to be a living person. An Individual means a single human being, distinct from a group of human beings. A non-existent or dead person cannot be put within the scope of “individual. It has also been held by the Hon’bie Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Deccan Wine & General Stores v CIT [1977] 106 ITR 111 (AP), that an individual under the Income-tax Act, 1961 means only a human being Consequently, a dead person will not fall within the scope of expression ‘person’ under section 2(31) of the 1961 Act. Therefore, any notice issued to a dead person for making assessment or reassessment will be invalid

3.4 Once the assessee is dead, no valid reassessment can be made on him by issuing notice under section 148 in the name of the deceased or framing assessment in his name. It is because on death of a person his legal personality ceases to exist and thereafter no order can be passed against such dead person. Thus, the assessment in the hands of dead person is vaid.

3.5 Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(i) The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a recent decision in the case of Alamelu Veerappan v. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai (2018] 95 com 155 (Madras) observed that notice issued in name of dead person is not enforceable in law. It is held as under.

“Section 159, read with sections 148 and 2928, of the Income-tax Act 1961-Legal representatives (Notice to dead person) – Assessment year 2010-11 Whether notice issued in name of dead person is not enforceable in law – Held, yes – Whether there is no statutory obligation on part of legal representative of deceased to immediately intimate death of assessee or take steps to cancel PAN registration – Held, yes [Para 17] {in favour of assessee]”

(ii) In the case of Rasid Lala v. Income-tax Officer [2017] 77 com 39 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court expressed the view that notice issued in the name of dead person was not valid. It was held as under

“Section 148, read with section 159, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment Issue of notice (Dead person) – Assessment year 2009-10 Original assessee, namely, ‘B’ died on 2-12-2009 – After a period of six years, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in name of ‘B’ to reopen assessment for assessment year 2009-10 Thereupon petitioner-heir and legal representative of ‘B’ informed Assessing Officer that ‘B’ had already expired on 2-12-2009 and, therefore, notice in her name was not valid – Despite it. Assessing Officer relying upon section 159 informed petitioner to file return of income for assessment year 2009-10 and continued with reassessment proceedings against ‘B’ Whether even if section 159 relied upon by Assessing Officer was attracted in instant case, in that case also, notice under section 148 was required to be issued against and in name of heir of ‘B’ Held, yes -Whether under circumstances section 159 shall not be any assistance to Assessing Officer Held, yes Whether, therefore, impugned notice issued under section 148 was liable to be set aside Held, yes [Paras 7 and 101 [In favour of assessee)”.

(iii) The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Braham Parkash v. Income-tax Officer [20051 275 ITR 242 (DELHI) observed that notice u/s 148 could not be served upon deceased person and hence invalid. It washeld as under:

“Section 148, read with sections 156 and 221, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment Issue of notice for Assessment year 1996-97 A notice under section 148 was issued upon original assessee when he was no more Thereafter, department issued notice f demand under section 221(1) calling upon him to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for non-payment of dues – Whether notice under section 148 could not have been served upon deceased Held, yes Whether since department had not placed any material to show that notice under section 148 was served on petitioner, it could be said that notice was not served on him- Held, yes Whether, therefore, subsequent proceedings were bad in law as there was breach of principles of natural justice as well as mandatory provisions contained under section 148 Held, yes Whether therefore notice of demand. notice under section 221(1) as also order of assessment and order of penalty were to be quashed-Held, yes”

(IV) In the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer [2019] 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has expressed the opinion that a notice issued under section 148 against a dead person is invalid. It was held as under

“Section 148, read with section 159, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment Issue of notice for (Dead person) Assessment year 2011-12-Whether a notice issued under section 148 against a dead person is invalid, unless legal representative submits to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer without raising any objection Held, yes Original assessee, namely, ‘JHP’ died on 24­6-2015-Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in name of ‘JHP’ to reopen assessment Thereupon petitioner being heir and legal representative of JHP informed Assessing Officer that ‘JHP’ had already expired and, therefore notice in his name was not valid He also enclosed death certificate of JHP Assessing Officer disposed of objections raised by petitioner stating that since original assessee’s son-legal heir had received notice and replied to it, he had participated in proceedings and thus defect in issue of notice was automatically cured as per provisions of section 2928 Accordingly, Assessing Officer continued with reassessment proceedings against JHP Whether merely because in response to notice issued against JHP”, petitioner had informed Assessing Officer about death of assessee and asked him to drop proceedings, it could not, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as petitioner having participated in proceedings and therefore, provisions of section 2928 would not be attracted Held, yes – Whether, therefore, impugned notice issued under section 148 was to be treated as invalid Held, yes [Paras 16, 18 and 19] [In favour of assessee)

(V) The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai [2019] 103 com 188 (Bombay) also expressed the same opinion that for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, notice should be issued in name of living person. It was held as under

“Section 2928, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Retum of income, etc. not to be invalid on certain grounds (Scope of) Assessment year 2011-12 Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 in name of dead person, ie, deceased assessee [B], to reopen his assessment – Petitioner, who was registered legal heir of ‘B’. challenged impugned notice on ground that it was without jurisdiction Assessing Officer rejected petitioner’s preliminary objection inter alia on ground that defect in notice would stand rectified by virtue of section 292B-Whether for acquining jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, notice should be issued in name of living person, i.e., legal heir of deceased assessee – Held, yes Whether section 2928 could not be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial error – Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee)”

(VI) In the case of Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circl 4(1) [2020] 118 com 46 (Delhi), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also expressed the same opinion that notice u/s 148 could not be issued in the name of dead person. It was held as under.

“Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment -Issue of notice for (Service of notice) – Assessment year 2012-13-An information was received by Assessing Officer that assessee had deposited certain amount in his bank account source of which was not explained Assessing Officer thus issued a notice to assessee under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment Petitioner le legal representative of assessee filed instant petition challenging validity of said notice by contending that it was issued subsequent to death of assessee and, thus, statutory requirement of service of notice had not been fulfilled – Whether in absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum of death of assessee to department Held, yes Whether, therefore, question as to whether PAN record was updated or not or whether department was made aware by legal representatives or not is irrelevant Held, yes Whether in view of aforesaid legal position and, having regard to fact that impugned notice could not have been served upon assessee, same deserved to be quashed Held, yes (Paras 32, 41 and 42] (in favour of assessee]

(vii) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue in the case of Dharamraj V Income-Tax Officer [2022] 441 ITR 462 (Del) and observed that notice u/s 148 issued to deceased person was not valid It was held as under

“Held, allowing the petition, that since the notice under section 148 was issued against a dead person (assessee) and therefore, null and void, all consequent proceedings and orders, including the assessment order passed under section 144 and all the subsequent notices issued were equally tainted and were set aside.”

3.6 In view of the above, the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued in the name of deceased person is ab-initio void and invalid The impugned consequent assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 1448 of the Act dated 06.03.2024 was also passed in the name of the deceased person, which is not legally valid. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned notice u/s 148 and consequent assessment order u/s 147 may kindly be quashed, being ab-initio void and invalid. Accordingly, the appeal may kindly be allowed.

4. The appellant is presently making submission against the legal grounds of appeal taken in appeal. Since, the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed on legal grounds, the other grounds related to addition in the assessment order become academic and may not be required to be adjudicated

5. However, in case your good self requires the assessee to furnish submission on other grounds on merit, the appellant may kindly be provided an opportunity to furnish the same

6. In view of the above, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed.”

8. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case the assessee Neeraj Kataria had expired on 31.12.2016 and a copy of the death certificate is placed on record. The assessment of the assessee Late Neeraj Kataria was reopened by issue of notice u/s.147/148 based on the information that the assessee received compensation/interest of Rs.3,90,29,900/- from land acquisition officer on the compulsory acquisition of land. It appears that in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act a return was filed declaring nil income and the return was said to have been verified by the assessee late Neeraj Kataria. The AO thereafter issued several notices to the assessee to which there was no response and accordingly the assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w. 144B bringing to tax an amount of Rs.3,65,47,361/- being interest on compensation paid to the assessee, after allowing deduction u/s.57 of the Act at 50%.

9. We observed that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition forthe reason that return was filed by the assessee and there was no communication from the legal heirs to the department about the death of the assessee i.e. late Neeraj Kataria. We observed that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerapan v. ITO (95 com 155) held that notice issued in the name of dead person is not enforceable in law. Further it was also held that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the legal representative of deceased to immediately intimate death of assessee or take steps to cancel PAN registration.

10. We observed that in the case of Rashid Lal Vs. ITO (77 com 39) the facts before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court were that the assessee expired on 02.12.2009 and after a period of six years the AO issued notice u/s.148 in the name of deceased assessee to reopen assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10. The legal heir of deceased assessee informed the AO that the assessee had already expired on 02.12.2009 and therefore, notice issued in the name of deceased assessee is not valid. Despite this fact the AO completed the assessment on the deceased assessee u/s.147 of the Act and in such circumstances the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the AO is wrong in proceeding to complete the assessment on the deceased assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the AO should have brought legal heir on record and should have issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on the legal heir of the deceased assessee.

11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Braham Prakash v. ITO (275 ITR 242) held that since the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on a deceased assessee could not be served, the notice of demand u/s.22(1) and also the assessment order and the order of penalty were to be quashed. Similar view has been taken in the Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO (101 com 362 (Guj).

12. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (103 com 188) examined the scope of provision of section 292B r.w.s. 148 of the Act and held that for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment notice should be issued in the name of living person i.e. legal heir of deceased assessee. Section 292B could not be invoked to correct the foundational / substantial error.

13. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Dharamraj v. ITO (2022) (441 ITR 462) held that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on a deceased person is null and void, all consequent proceedings and orders including the assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Act and all the subsequent notices issued were equally tainted and were set aside. The above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case.

14. Further, the return filed on 28.09.2020 and verifying such return by the assessee late Neeraj Kataria will have no significance in the light of the fact that the assessee had already expired on 31.12.2016 and death certificate was already issued by Government of Haryana department of Health Services Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon certifying that Neeraj Kataria expired on 31.12.2016 at the age of 75 years.

15. In these circumstances respectfully following the decisions referred to above we hold that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and the assessment framed pursuant to such notice on the assessee Late Neeraj Kataria for the A.Y.2019-20 is illegal, bad in law and void-ab-inito and the same is hereby quashed.

16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2026.