ITAT Surat Quashes Reassessment Notice Issued to Deceased Assessee

Late Smt. Vasantiben Manubhai Joshi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

Summary: ITAT Surat allowed the appeal of Late Smt. Vasantiben Manubhai Joshi for AY 2011-12 and quashed the assessment framed under Sections 144 read with 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had died on 24.01.2016, whereas the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 in her name on 28.03.2018. Her husband informed the Assessing Officer about her death on 30.11.2018 and objected to continuation of the reassessment proceedings, but the objection was rejected and an ex-parte assessment was completed on 12.12.2018 determining total income at Rs. 56,13,148/-. Before the Tribunal, the legal heir challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice and, without prejudice, the additions of Rs. 55,34,660/- towards unexplained investment in fixed deposits and Rs. 78,488/- towards unexplained interest. Relying upon the decisions including Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai, Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel, Savita Kapila, Alamelu Veerappan, N. Binoj and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pranav Gupta, and considering Section 159 of the Act, the Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person was not a valid notice. The Tribunal noted that Section 159(2)(a) concerns proceedings initiated against the deceased during his or her lifetime, while Section 159(2)(b) permits proceedings that could have been taken against the deceased to be taken against the legal representative; in the present case, however, the Assessing Officer issued the notice in the deceased assessee’s name after her death and thereafter continued proceedings against the legal heir. The Tribunal held that this course was not permissible. It accordingly quashed the assessment order and allowed Ground No. 1. Since the assessment itself was quashed, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the remaining grounds relating to the additions, leaving them open and undecided.

Reassessment proceedings initiated against deceased assessee- Notice under section 148 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is void ab initio; subsequent intimation of death by the legal heir and continuation of proceedings in the legal heir’s name cannot cure the jurisdictional defect, particularly after expiry of limitation.

Core Issue: Whether reassessment proceedings can validly be initiated by issuing notice under section 148 in the name of a person who had already died, and thereafter be continued against the legal heir under section 159, where the legal heir was informed only after expiry of the statutory limitation for issuing a fresh notice under section 148.

Facts: The assessee, Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, died on 24.01.2016. Despite his death, the AO issued notice under section 148 on 28.03.2018 in his name, shortly before the limitation expired on 31.03.2018. The legal heir subsequently informed the AO about the death on 30.11.2018. The AO thereafter completed the reassessment on 12.12.2018 in the name of the legal heir. The legal heir had specifically protested against the notice being issued in the name of the deceased and did not participate further in the assessment proceedings.

AO/CIT Findings: The Revenue contended that the AO had no knowledge of the assessee’s death when the notice was issued and that the legal heir informed the AO only on 30.11.2018, by which time the limitation for issuing a fresh notice under section 148 had expired. According to the Revenue, since the AO thereafter passed the assessment order in the name of the legal heir, there was no defect in the proceedings. The Revenue therefore sought to sustain the reassessment on the ground that the Department could not have issued a fresh notice after 31.03.2018.

ITAT Finding: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention and held that a notice under section 148 issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid jurisdictional notice. The sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is issuance of notice to the correct person. This is not a mere procedural requirement but a condition precedent to the validity of reassessment. Since the assessee had already died before the notice was issued, the notice was incapable of valid service and the proceedings founded upon it became non-est in law.

The Tribunal further examined section 159(2) and held that where proceedings had not been initiated against the assessee during his lifetime, the AO could initiate proceedings against the legal representative only in accordance with law. The Department could not issue the notice against the deceased and subsequently, after expiry of limitation, convert or continue the same proceedings against the legal heir. Where the Department intended to reopen the assessment, it was required to issue the statutory notice to the legal heir within the prescribed period. Once that period expired, the defect could not be cured by subsequently obtaining knowledge of the death.

The Tribunal also held that participation or continuation of proceedings cannot confer jurisdiction where the foundational notice itself is invalid. In the present case, the legal heir had in fact objected to the notice being issued in the name of the deceased. Therefore, the defect could not be treated as a curable procedural lapse under section 292BB.

Cases Relied Upon: The Tribunal relied upon Braham Prakash v. ITO [2005] 275 ITR 242 (Delhi), Savita Kapila v. ACIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502 (Delhi), Vipin Walia v. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 56/238 Taxman 1/382 ITR 19 (Delhi), Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras), Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 188/414 ITR 292 (Bombay) and the Supreme Court decision in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/416 ITR 613 (SC). The Tribunal also referred to Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. and Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel. These authorities consistently recognise that a notice issued to a dead person is a substantive jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured merely by subsequent participation or continuation of proceedings.

Limitation and Section 159: Particularly important was the Tribunal’s reliance on Vipin Walia, where it was held that if the assessee had already died when the section 148 notice was issued, the Department could have proceeded against the legal heirs before expiry of limitation, but could not do so after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal found the facts materially identical and applied the same principle.

Outcome: The Tribunal held that the section 148 notice dated 28.03.2018 issued in the name of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, who had died on 24.01.2016, was invalid. Since no valid notice under section 148 had been issued either to the assessee during his lifetime or to the legal heir within the statutory limitation, the entire reassessment proceeding was held to be void ab initio and liable to be quashed. The Revenue’s appeal was consequently dismissed and the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

Ratio: A reassessment notice under section 148 issued after the death of the assessee in his name is a substantive jurisdictional illegality. Section 159 does not authorise the AO to validate such notice by subsequently continuing proceedings against the legal heir. Where no valid notice is issued to the legal representative within the limitation prescribed under section 149, the reassessment is void ab initio. The Department’s lack of knowledge of the assessee’s death does not extend the statutory limitation or cure an otherwise invalid assumption of jurisdiction.

List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon

• Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 — relied upon for condonation of the 9-day delay in filing the appeal.
• Bhupendra Bhikha Lal Desai Vs. ITO, (2021) 130 taxmann.com 196 (Guj) — Gujarat High Court decision holding that a notice issued to a dead person is unenforceable in law; the Revenue’s SLP was also stated to have been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
• Income-tax Officer Vs. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai, (2021) 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC) — SLP dismissal confirming the Gujarat High Court decision.
• Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Guj.) — notice under Section 148 issued against a deceased assessee held invalid unless the legal representative submits to jurisdiction without objection.
• Rasid Lala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), (2017) 77 Taxman.com 39 (Guj.) — reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person held invalid; Section 159 did not validate the notice issued in the deceased’s name.
• Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC); 265 Taxman 515; 416 ITR 613 (SC) — relied upon concerning substantive illegality where jurisdictional proceedings are initiated against a non-existent entity.
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong Vs. Jai Prakash Singh, (1996) 219 ITR 737 (SC) — distinguished on the basis of its factual circumstances involving participation by a legal representative.
• Maharaja of Patiala Vs. CIT, (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bom.) — referred to in the discussion concerning notice served upon a successor legal representative.
• Alamelu Veerappan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai — held that notice issued in the name of a dead person was unenforceable and Section 159 did not apply where proceedings had not been initiated during the assessee’s lifetime.
• Vipin Walia Vs. ITO, (2016) 67 taxmann.com 56; 238 Taxman 1; 382 ITR 19 (Delhi) — reassessment notice issued after the assessee’s death and beyond the limitation period held invalid.
• Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 396 — referred to in the discussion concerning Section 292B and assessment against a non-existing person.
• Rajendra Kumar Padmshibhai Padshala Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2024) 168 taxmann.com 513 (Gujrat) — reassessment notice issued in the name of a deceased person and consequential proceedings held liable to be quashed.
• Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT, (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) — Section 148 notice must be issued to the correct person; legal heirs were held under no statutory obligation to intimate the Department about death.
• Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai & Ors., (2019) 2 TMI 1209 — referred to concerning the jurisdictional character of notice under Section 148.
• Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vs. ITO, (2019) 101 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi); 414 ITR 286 (Delhi) — Section 292BB held inapplicable where notice was issued in the name of a deceased assessee.
• Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai Vs. Shri M. Hemanathan, 2016 (4) TMI 258 (Madras) — Section 292BB held inapplicable where the assessee was already dead.
• N. Binoj Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2025) 170 taxmann.com 469 (Kerala) — notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148 issued to a deceased person held invalid and non-est.
• CIT Vs. Sumantbhai C. Munshaw, [1981] 5 Taxman 27; 128 ITR 142 (Gujarat) — referred to regarding the distinction between nullity and irregularity.
• Sheela Devi Vs. Pr. CIT, [2022] SCC OnLine ITAT 75 — referred to concerning notice issued against a dead person.
• Shabina Abraham Vs. Collector Central Excise and Customs, (2015) 10 SCC 770 — referred to in the context of tax liability of a deceased person.
• Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pranav Gupta, (2025) 176 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi-Trib.) — recent ITAT decision concerning a Section 148 notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee and the validity of subsequent proceedings.
• Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1971) 79 ITR 505 — cited in the discussion concerning proceedings against a deceased assessee.
• Commissioner of Income Tax and ors Vs. Chhabildas Agraval, [2013] 357 ITR 257 — Revenue’s reliance considered in the discussion of availability of appellate remedies.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first appeal dated 03.04.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 12.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Ward-9, Vapi [“Ld. AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax (Through Legal Heir Deepakbhai Manubhai Joshi) Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2. There is a small delay of 9 days in filing present appeal. Having regard to the averments made in the application/affidavit for condonation of delay, placed in case file, we are satisfied that there exists a “sufficient cause” for occurrence of delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 9 days in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing.

3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual was “Smt. Vasantiben Manubhai Joshi” who did not file any return of AY 2011-12. The AO, on the basis of information in his possession revealing that the assessee had made investment in time deposits of Rs. 69,05,721/- with banks during the relevant year, issued notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2018 to make assessment u/s 147. In response, the assessee did not file any return. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1). In response, “Shri Manubhai Joshi”, husband of assessee, informed to AO vide reply dated 30.11.2018 that his wife & assessee “Smt. Vasantiben Manubhai Joshi” had already deceased on 24.01.2016. He further protested the proceeding of assessment u/s 147 being done by AO, on the basis of various case laws holding that a notice issued u/s 148 in the name of a “deceased person” is invalid [Para 3 of assessment-order]. However, the Ld. AO turned down his objection and continued proceeding of assessment. Ultimately, finding no further response from assessee’s side, the Ld. AO completed ex-parte assessment u/s 144 whereby he assessed total income at Rs. 56,13,148/-. Aggrieved, the deceased assessee’s husband-cum-Legal Heir carried matter in first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and contested the legality of assessment u/s 147 framed by AO as well as the merits of additions. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not grant any relief. Now, the son-cum-another Legal Heir of deceased assessee, “Shri Deepakbhai Manubhai”, has come in present appeal before ITAT.

4. Following grounds have been raised:

“1. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in re­opening the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on a deceased person. The notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act and the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto are bad in law and therefore the assessment order passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 12/12/2018 deserves to be quashed in toto.

2. Without prejudice, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 55,34,660/- treating the same as unexplained investment made in Fixed Deposits. The Action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted.

3. Without prejudice, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 78,488/- treating the same as unexplained interest received. The Action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings.

5. The appellant humbly prays that the appeal be allowed in toto.”

5. Ground No. 1 is a legal ground in which it is being claimed that the notice u/s 148 issued by Ld. AO in the name of “deceased person” and consequent assessment framed u/s 147 on the basis of such notice, is illegal and liable to be quashed.

6. At first, we may take note of certain dates which would be relevant in subsequent discussion:

Date of death of assessee	24.01.2016
Date on which the AO issued notice u/s 148	28.03.2018
Date on which the Legal Heir informed to AO about death of assessee	30.11.2018
Date on which the AO passed assessment-order	12.12.2018

7. During hearing before us, the Ld. AR for assessee relied upon certain judicial precedents to contend that the notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2018 issued by AO in the name of assessee who had already deceased on 24.01.2016, is invalid. For an immediate reference, we extract the relevant portions of a few decisions cited by Ld. AR:

(i) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Bhupendra Bhikha Lal Desai Vs. ITO (2021) 130 taxmann.com 196 (Guj):

“22. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Income Tax (Gujarat), had the occasion to consider an identical issue but in context with Section 148 of the Act. We should look into the observations made by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment, which read thus :

“5. Mr.Chintan Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the issuance of a valid notice is the foundation for the validity of the assessment. It was contended that the defect in procedure will normally not amount to lack of jurisdiction, however, the notice prescribed under section 148 of the Act for the purpose of initiation of reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the validity of the assessment. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, the proceedings initiated would be invalid and void. The notice issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid notice and in the absence of issuance of a valid notice, the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act cannot be said to be valid.

5.1 It was further submitted that in this case, the notice has been issued to a dead person and hence, such notice is null and void. To initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act, issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased is mandatory, in the absence of which the proceedings cannot be continued by issuance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act against the heirs. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this court in Rasid Lala v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), (2017) 77 Taxman.com 39 (Guj.), wherein the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee long after he had passed away. The heir of the deceased informed the Assessing Officer that the assessee has passed away and, therefore, the notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid, despite which the heir was told to file the return of income in compliance of the said notice. The court held that the notice issued in the name of a dead person was not valid and that despite being informed about the death of the original assessee, the assessee, instead of taking corrective measures as provided under section 292B of the Act and issuing fresh notice to the heirs of the deceased, continued with the reassessment proceedings against the dead person. The court further held that section 159 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of that case, and that, even if section 159 is attracted, the notice was required to be issued in the name of the heirs of the deceased assessee. Mr. Dave submitted that the aforesaid decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2018 issued under section 148 of the Act having been issued against a dead person as well as the subsequent notices issued pursuant thereto, are invalid and are, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside.”

XXX

24. We are of the view that the same principle as referred to above would apply even to a notice issued to a dead assessee under Section 153C of the Act. It is not in dispute that the legal heir of late Bhupendrabhai Desai had not participated in the proceedings. All that the legal heir of late Bhupendrabhai Desai did was to inform the Assessing Officer about the death of his father and requested to drop the proceedings. It is true that although the father passed away in the year 2017, yet the legal heir did not inform the department upto October 2019. However, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that even after coming to know about the demise of late Bhupendrabhai, the department could have issued a valid notice to the legal heir as the period of limitation of 21 months had not expired. We fail to understand what prevented the department from issuing a valid notice to the legal heir within the prescribed time period.

25. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC). The ratio of this decision of the Supreme Court is that during the pendency of the assessment proceedings if the assessee company gets amalgamated with another company, it would lose its existence and the assessment order passed subsequently in the name of the said non­existing entity would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set-aside.

26. In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, although the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamated company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, yet the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The Supreme Court took the view that the basis on which the jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. We quote the relevant observations thus:

“32. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong v Jai Prakash Singh38 (“Jai Prakash Singh”). That was a case where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2). These were complied with and no objections were raised to the assessment proceedings. The assessment order mentioned the names of all the legal representatives and the assessment was made in the status of an individual. In appeal, it was contended that the assessment proceedings were void as all the legal representatives were not given notice. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v CIT39 holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bom.) (“Maharaja of Patiala”). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as “His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala”. The successor appealed against the assessment contending that since the notices were sent in the name of the Maharaja of Patiala and not to him as the legal representative of the Maharaja of Patiala, the assessments were illegal. The Bombay High Court held that the successor Maharaja was a legal representative of the deceased and while it would have been better to so describe him in the notice, the notice was not bad merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity. Following these two decisions, this Court in Jai Prakash Singh held that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where the liability is created by a distinct substantive provision. The omission or defect may render the order irregular but not void or illegal. Jai Prakash Singh and the two decisions that it placed reliance upon were evidently based upon the specific facts. Jai Prakash Singh involved a situation where the return of income had been filed by one of the legal representatives to whom notices were issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2). No objection was raised by the legal representative who had filed the return that a notice should also to be served to other legal representatives of the deceased assessee. No objection was raised before the assessing officer. Similarly, the decision in Maharaja of Patiala was a case where the notice had been served on the legal representative, the successor Maharaja and the Bombay High Court held that it was not void merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity.

33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment.”

27. A lot has been argued by Mr.M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, by submitting that the department was not intimated about the death of the assessee and the legal heirs failed to take any steps to cancel the PAN registration in the name of the assessee and, therefore, no fault could be found with the department.

28. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai, wherein the Madras High Court held as under :

“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.

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.”

29. Ultimately, in view of the aforesaid, the only proposition of law that is applicable in the present litigation is that a notice, be it under Section 148 of the Act or Section 153C of the Act, issued to a dead person, is unenforceable in law. If such is the legal position, the Revenue cannot contend that as they had no knowledge about the death of the assessee, they are entitled to plead that the notice is not defective.

XXX

35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are left with no other option but to allow the present writ-application and hold that the impugned notice being invalid, the further proceedings pursuant thereto are not tenable in law.

36. In the result, this writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned notice as well as the order (Annexure-C) are hereby quashed and set-aside. The connected writ- applications also succeed on the same line and the impugned respective notices and the orders are hereby quashed and set- aside.”

Ld. AR also pointed out that the Revenue’s SLP against the above order of Hon’ble High Court has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer Vs. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai (2021) 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC); copy of order is placed before us.

(ii) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajendra Kumar Padmshibhai Padshala Vs. Income-tax Officer (2024) 168 taxmann.com 513 (Gujrat):

“7. The respondent-Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’] on the basis of the information that late grandfather of the petitioner deposited cash in State Bank of India of Rs. 14,50,000/-and had earned interest income of Rs. 31,839/- from Veraval Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. during the Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13 and he did not file return of income disclosing cash deposited in the bank account which had remained unexplained and on the basis of the same, notice dated 27.03.2019 was issued in the name of late grandfather of the assessee.

8. As the notice was issued at Village:- Khilavad, no one could file any reply in response to the notice 02.08.2019 and subsequent notice dated 29.08.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Further, final show-cause notice dated 24.10.2019 and thereafter, assessment order dated 29.11.2019 was passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act assessing the total income of Rs. 17,31,839/-. A demand notice under section 156 of the Act was issued raising a demand of Rs. 9,86,200/-. Thereafter, notice under section 274 read with section 271F of the Act was also issued to levy the penalty.

9. Order under section 271F of the Act was passed on 03.01.2022 for levying the penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.

10. The petitioner, by letter dated 09.01.2020, informed the respondent-Assessing Officer that his grandfather had expired on 13.03.2019 prior to the issuance of notice for reopening in his name. It was further pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner that no notice or any letter was received after death of his grandfather and requested the respondent-Assessing Officer to withdraw the assessment order passed by him along with letter. The petitioner also filed the death certificate of his grandfather.

11. Learned advocate Mr. R.G. Chaudhary for the petitioner submitted that issuance of notice for reopening under section 148 of the Act is bad in law as the same is issued in name of the deceased person and therefore, the consequential assessment order, the demand raised and the penalty order are required to be quashed and set aside. In respect of his submissions reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of Bhupendra Bhikhalal com 196 and decision of Madras High Court in case of Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras reported in (1971) 79 ITR 505 (SC).

12. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent-Assessing Officer submitted that the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned assessment order in the capacity of legal representative before the appellate authority and the petition should not be entertained. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax and ors vs Chhabildas Agraval reported in [2013] 357 ITR 257 has held that only on the ground that the impugned notice was issued in the name of the deceased person and therefore the same is bad in law, is not tenable as the Assessing Officer has categorically recorded in the impugned order that the notices were served and therefore, it is presumed that the petitioner was aware about the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the petitioner has failed to bring to the notice of the respondent-Assessing Officer about the death of his grandfather so as to initiate the proceedings against the legal heir.

13. It was therefore submitted that no interference be made while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides, the issue with regard to issuance of notice for reassessment under section 148 of the Act on a dead person is no more res integra in view of the decision of Bhupendra Bhikhalal (supra) wherein notice issued under section 153C of the Act against a dead person is held to be defective and consequently quashed and set aside. This Court in the aforesaid decision has held as under:

XXX

(this decision is already re-produced in preceeding para)

15. This Court in case of Pravinkumar Premchand Patel L/R of Late Hiraben Premchand Patel vs. Income Tax Officer referring to the decision in case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Income com 362 (Guj.) wherein, similar issue was considered and held as under:

“12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is an admitted position that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to a dead person. The petitioner being the heir and legal representative of the deceased, upon receipt of the notice, immediately raised objection against the validity of the impugned notice and did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer by filing a return of income, but kept on objecting to the continuation of the assessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. The Assessing Officer, however, instead of taking corrective steps under section 292B of the Act and issuing notice to the heirs and legal representatives, insisted on continuing with the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice which was issued in the name of a dead person. Since strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the provisions of section 2(7) and 2(29) read with sections 159 and 292B of the Act, reference may be made to the said provisions, which read as under:

“Section 2(7) “assessee” means a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under this Act, and includes –

a. every person in respect of whom any proceeding under the Act has been taken for the assessment of his income or of the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable, or of the loss sustained by him or by such other person, or of the amount of refund due to him or to such other person;

b. every person who is deemed to be an assessee under any provision of this Act;

c. every person who is deemed to be an assessee in default under any provision of this Act;

“Section 2(29) “legal representative” has the meaning assigned to it in clause (11) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;”

“159. Legal representatives. – (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased.

(2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1).-

a. any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased;

b. any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and

c. all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.

(3) The legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee.

(4) Every legal representative shall be personally liable for any tax payable by him in his capacity as legal representative if, while his liability for tax remains undercharged, he creates a charge on or disposes of or parts with any assets of the estate of the deceased, which are in, or may come into, his possession, but such liability shall be limited to the value of the asset so charged, disposed of, or parted with.

(Through Legal Heir Deepakbhai Manubhai Joshi)

a. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 161, section 162 and section 167, shall, so far as may be and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, apply in relation to a legal representative.

b. The liability of a legal representative under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and subsection (5), be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability.”

“292B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. – No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.”

13. Thus, the expression “assessee” includes every person who is deemed to be an assessee under any provision of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 159 of the Act, postulates that the legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be an assessee. Subsection (2) of section 159 of the Act says that for the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or re- computation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),

– (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased;

(b) any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and

c) all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly.

14. Thus, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act provides for the eventuality where a proceeding has already been initiated against the deceased before his death, in which case such proceeding shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased. In the present case, the proceeding under section 147 of the Act had not been initiated against the deceased before his death, and hence, clause (a) would not be applicable in the facts of this case.

15. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act provides that any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived may be taken against the legal representative. The present case would, therefore, fall within the ambit of section 159(2)(b) of the Act and, hence, the proceeding can be taken against the legal representative. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that a proceeding under section 147 of the Act of reopening the assessment is initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and as a necessary corollary, therefore, for taking a proceeding under that section against the legal representative, necessary notice under section 148 of the Act would be required to be issued to him. In the present case, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued against the deceased assessee. In the opinion of this court, since this is not a case falling under clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 159 of the Act, the proceeding pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act issued to the dead person, cannot be continued against the legal representative.

16. On behalf of the revenue, it has been contended that issuance of the notice to the dead assessee is merely a technical defect which could be corrected under section 292B of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts for contending that the proceedings would not be null and void merely because the notice has been issued against a dead person as the legal representative had received the notice and has objected to the validity of the notice and further continuation of the proceedings. In the opinion of this court, here lies the distinction between those cases and the present case. In the relied upon cases, the legal representative, in response to the impugned notice, filed return of income and participated in the proceeding and then raised an objection to the validity of the proceeding and, therefore, the court held that this was a case of waiver and that a technical defect can be waived; whereas in this case, right from the inception the petitioner has objected to the validity of the notice and thereafter to the continuation of the proceeding and has at no point of time participated in the proceeding by filing the income tax return in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Had the petitioner responded to the notice by filing return of income, he could have been said to have participated in the proceedings, however, merely because the petitioner has informed the Assessing Officer about the death of the assessee and asked him to drop the proceedings, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as the petitioner having participated in the proceedings.”

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 13061/2021 dismissed the SLP confirming the order passed by this Court in case of Bhupendra Bhikhalal (supra).

18. In view of the above conspectus of law, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned notice dated 27.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the Act and consequential assessment order dated 29.11.2019 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act as well as the order dated 23.01.2022 passed under section 271F levying penalty of Rs. 5000/- are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.”

(iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi):

“THE SINE QUA NON FOR ACQUIRING JURISDICTION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHOULD BE ISSUED TO A CORRECT PERSON AND NOT TO A DEAD PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.

25. In the present case the notice dated 31st March, 2019 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the deceased assessee after the date of his death [ 21st December, 2018] and thus inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the present instance.

26. In the opinion of this Court the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is the foundation for reopening of an assessment. Consequently, the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. [See Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai & Ors., (2019) 2 TMI 1209 – Bombay High Court].

27. In Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2019 (1) TMI 353 – Gujarat High Court has also held, “the question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued against the deceased assessee can be said to be in conformity with or according to the intent and purposes of the Act. In this regard, it may be noted that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, and existence of a valid notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess under Section 147 of the Act. The want of valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment and thus, affects the validity of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment. A notice issued under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.” Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void.

ALSO, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS EVER ISSUED UPON THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PER SECTION 149(1)(b) OF THE ACT, 1961.

28. Also, no notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was ever issued to the petitioner during the period of limitation and simply proceedings were transferred to the PAN of the petitioner, who happens to be one of the four legal heirs of the deceased assessee vide letter dated 27th December, 2019. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction qua the Petitioner for the relevant assessment year is beyond the period prescribed and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961.

29. In Sudha Prasad (supra) the petitioner had challenged the assessment order and demand notice only. Neither non-issuance of notice was challenged nor the issue of proceedings being barred by limitation was raised or decided. Consequently, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case and is therefore, of no help to the revenue.

AS IN THE PRESENT CASE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT INITIATED / PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS ALIVE AND AFTER HIS DEATH THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, SECTION 159 OF THE ACT, 1961 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE.

30. Section 159 of the Act, 1961 applies to a situation where proceedings are initiated / pending against the assessee when he is alive and after his death the legal representative steps into the shoes of the deceased assessee. Since that is not the present factual scenario, Section 159 of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case.

31. In Alamelu Veerappan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai, 2018 (6) TMI 760 – Madras High Court, it has been held by the Madras High Court, “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.” In Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra), a Coordinate bench of this Court has held, “This court is of the opinion that the absence of any provision in the Act, to fasten revenue liability upon a deceased individual, in the absence of pending or previously instituted proceeding which is really what the present case is all about, renders fatal the effort of the revenue to impose the tax burden upon a legal representative.”

THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION UPON LEGAL HEIRS TO INTIMATE THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE.

32. This Court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the income tax department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased assessee or the deceased assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether PAN record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu Veerappan (supra) it has been held “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.”

33. The judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) offers no assistance to the respondents. In Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 170 of the Act, 1961 (succession to business otherwise than on death) wherein notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961 was issued to non-existing company. In that case, Department by very nature of transaction was aware about the amalgamation. However, the said judgment nowhere states that there is an obligation upon the legal representative to inform the Income Tax Department about the death of the assessee or to surrender the PAN of the deceased assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“35. In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

39. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment.

40. Consequently, the legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the revenue.

SECTION 292B OF THE ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE VIZ-A-VIZ NOTICE ISSUED TO A DEAD PERSON IN RAJENDER KUMAR SEHGAL (SUPRA), CHANDRESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL (SUPRA) AND ALAMELU VEERAPPAN (SUPRA).

This Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Consequently, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case.

In Skylight Hospitality (supra) notice was issued to Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. In that factual context, this Court had observed, “Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated April 11, 2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was relied and dealt with by them.” The Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP had also observed “In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.”

In any event, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 has been held to be inapplicable viz-a-viz notice issued to a dead person in Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra), Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) and Alamelu Veerappan (supra). In all the aforesaid cases, the judgment of Skylight Hospitality (supra) had been cited by the revenue.

IN RAJENDER KUMAR SEHGAL (SUPRA) A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, 1961 IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSEE AND NOT TO A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.

7. This Court is also of the view that Section 292BB of the Act, 1961 is applicable to an assessee and not to a legal representative. Further, in the present case one of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, i.e. the petitioner, had neither cooperated in the assessment proceedings nor filed return or waived the requirement of Section 148 of the Act, 1961 or submitted to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. She had merely uploaded the death certificate of the deceased assessee. In Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai Vs. Shri M. Hemanathan, 2016 (4) TMI 258 – Madras High Court it has been held “In the case on hand, the assessee was dead. It was the assessee’s son, who appeared and perhaps cooperated. Therefore, the primary condition for the invocation of Section 292BB is absent in the case on hand. Section 292BB is in place to take care of contingencies where an assessee is put on notice of the initiation of proceedings, but who takes advantage of defective notices or defective service of notice on him. It is trite to point out that the purpose of issue of notice is to make the noticee aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of Section 292BB. It cannot be invoked in cases where the very initiation of proceedings is against a dead person. Hence, the second contention cannot also be upheld.”

8. Even a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra) has held “If the original assessee had lived and later participated in the proceedings, then, by reason of Section 292BB, she would have been precluded from saying that no notice was factually served upon her. When the notice was issued in her name- when she was no longer of this world, it is inconceivable that she could have participated in the reassessment proceedings, (nor is that the revenue’s case) to be estopped from contending that she did not receive it. The plain language of Section 292BB, in our opinion precludes its application, contrary to the revenue’s argument.”

40. Consequently, the applicability of Section 292BB of the Act, 1961 has been held to be attracted to an assessee and not to legal representatives.

CONCLUSION

41. To conclude, the arguments advanced by the respondent are no longer res integra and have been consistently rejected by different High Courts including this jurisdictional Court. In view of consistent, uniform and settled position of law, to accept the submissions of the respondent would amount to unsettling the „settled law‟. In fact, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), the Supreme Court speaking through Hon‟ble (Dr.) Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud has succinctly observed as under:-

“40. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.”

42. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2019 and all consequential orders/proceedings passed/initiated thereto including orders dated 21st November, 2019 and 27th December, 2019 are quashed.”

(iv) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in N. Binoj Vs. Income-tax Officer (2025) 170 taxmann.com 469 (Kerala):

“10. The sole question before us is whether notices issued under Sections 148A(b) and 148 of the Act to a deceasead person are sufficient to continue the proceedings thereafter with the legal representatives of the deceased assessee if the prescribed period of limitation for issuing such notice has expired vis-a-vis such LR?

11. The above said notices were issued with respect to the assessment year 2019­2020. The assessee expired on 30.10.2021. Admittedly, notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued in the name of deceased assessee on 27.03.2023. In response to the same, the LR appeared before the assessing authority on 05.04.2023 and appraised him of the death of the assessee. By that time, the limitation period for issuing a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) in the name of the LR had also expired. The Assessing Officer nevertheless proceeded to pass an order dated 10.04.2023 under Section 148A(d) and thereafter issue the notice under Section 148 on the same day.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO [2019] 101 com 362/261 Taxman 137/413 ITR 276 (Gujarat)]. In Chandreshbhai’s case (supra), the Gujarat High Court held that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is a jurisdictional notice, and existence of a valid notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess under Section 147. It was further observed that a notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection.

13. The learned counsel for the appellants has further placed reliance on the decision CIT v. Sumantbhai C. Munshaw [1981] 5 Taxman 27/128 ITR 142 (Gujarat)]. In Sumantbhai’s case (supra), it was observed that, no hard and fast line can be drawn between a nullity and an irregularity; but this much is clear, that an irregularity is a deviation from a rule of law which does not take away the foundation or authority for the proceeding or apply to its whole operation, whereas a nullity is a proceeding that it taken without any foundation for it or is so essentially defective as to be of no avail or effect whatever or is void and incapable of being validated?

14. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the decision Vipin Walia v. ΙΤΟ [2016] 67 com 56/238 Taxman 1/382 ITR 19 (Delhi) /[2017) 295 CTR (Del) 505]. In Vipin Walia’s case (supra), the High Court of Delhi opined that the issuance of notice to the legal representative of the deceased assessee under Section 147/148 of the Act within the period of limitation would be a plain illegality and not a mere irregularity. Paragraph 14 of the above judgment reads as follows:

“The court fails to understand how the above decision in CTT v. Jai Prakash Singh (supra) is of any help to the Revenue in the present case where the initial notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued to a dead person. The Revenue was unable to issue a notice to the legal representatives of the deceased assessee under Section 147/148 of the Act within the period of limitation. That would be a plain illegality and not a mere irregularity.’

15. The Apex Court in Sheela Devi v. Pr. CIT [2022 SCC OnLine ITAT 75 ] held that, notice issued against a dead person is null and void and all consequent proceedings/orders being equally tainted, are liable to be set aside.

16. In Shabina Abraham v. Collector Central Excise and Customs (2015)10 SCC 770/[2015] 61 com 95 (SC) the Apex Court had occasion to discuss about the tax liability of the dead person. In Shabina Abraham’s case (supra) the Apex Court would observe that “nothing is certain, except death and taxes”. To tax the dead is a contradiction in terms. Tax laws are made by the living to tax the living.

17. The crucial question that arises before us in this case is whether a notice issued in the name of a dead person after the prescribed period of limitation is a nullity or a mere irregularity which can be cured?.

18. The learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that it is an irregularity which could be cured, particularly when the legal representatives of the deceased assessee appear before the Assessing authority and subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, however it is a nullity and ‘ non-est’ in the eye of law.

19. Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the department came to know of the factum of death of Sri.Naringaparambail Bhaskaran

20. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the Appeal must succeed. The precedents referred above would make it amply clear that the notices issued under Sections 148A(b) and 148 of the Act in the name of a dead person are invalid and ‘non-est’ in the eye of law. It is a nullity and not a mere irregularity which could be cured. It is true that, on the receipt of the above said notices, the legal heirs of the deceased Naringaparambail Bhaskaran/appellants herein appeared before the assessing authority. However, that by itself would not change the situation. We are of the opinion that the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction to the assessing authority for initiation of an action which is otherwise illegal and ‘non-est’.

21. In the light of the above discussions, we cannot agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the legal heirs of the deceased assessee are estopped from taking a different stand in the writ petition, since they have appeared before the assessing authority and participated in the proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that the initiation of proceedings against a dead person under Sections 148A(b) and 148 of the Income Tax Act are illegal and ‘non-est’.

The Appeal succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2023 in W.P(C).No.34850/2023 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed by quashing the notices and order impugned in the writ petition.”

(v) Recent decision dated 20.06.2025 of ITAT, Delhi Bench in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pranav Gupta (2025) 176 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi – Trib.):

“3. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the appellant filed original return of income on 22.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs.209,13,750/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return filed by the assessee. In the said return of income the long term capital gain out of the sale of house property lying and situated at C169 Greater Kailash, New Delhi was disclosed. The computation of income declared a sale consideration of Rs.275,00,000/- from said transaction. The original assessee Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta passed away on 02.10.2015 but thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2016 in the name of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta upon receipt whereof the son of the assessee requested the Ld. AO in writing on 19.04.2016 to drop the proceeding as the notice was a nullity having been issued in the name of the dead person. On the contrary the legal heir of the assessee was directed to file the return of income, whereupon the son of the assessee again reiterated the prayer of dropping of the proceeding and filed the return already filed dated 22.02.2009 by his father. Further that, he asked for providing a copy of the reasons recorded.

4. In fact, it appears from the reasons recorded, inter alia, that a search and seizure action dated 17.09.2013 was carried out at the premises of Shri Naresh Gupta, a deed writer wherefrom a hard disk of his computer containing deeds pertaining to various properties transactions indicating cash billing in respect of the same was retrieved; the print out of such deeds from his computer was confronted to Shri Naresh Gupta on 08.11.2013 which was replied to have been based on clients instructions. Two agreements in respect of the sale of the premises at C169 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi mentioning some amount which is different to that of the amount mentioned in the registered sale deed of that particular premises were found.

5. The Ld. AO adopted an amount of Rs.9.90 crores in respect of one of the draft agreements found from the computer of Shri Naresh Gupta as the actual sale consideration and computed the amount of LTCG at Rs.8,71,156,675/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who in turn deleted the entire addition. Hence, the instant appeal before us.

6. At the very threshold of the matter before the First Appellate Authority the assessee challenged the validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued to the dead person. It is a trite law that in order to undertake proceeding in respect of deceased person the legal heir needs to be identified and notice are required to be served upon such legal heir being deemed assessee. Such notices, however, are also required to be served within the time limit. Notice to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act issued to a dead person and/or non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality when it is not the legal obligation on the part of the legal heir to suo moto inform the department on the date of the demise of the original assessee, the father, as in the case in hand; no notice under Section 148 was validly served when he was alive or on the deemed assessee i.e. the appellant before us renders the assumption of jurisdiction invalid as was the ultimate finding of the Ld. CIT(A) particularly relying upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 91/287 Taxman 566/443 ITR 194 (SC). Не therefore, held the assumption of jurisdiction to be invalid and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee with the following observations:

“6.7 The sum and substance of the above rulings is that a notice issued in the name of a dead person is not a valid notice. Further, in order to undertake proceedings in respect of a deceased person, his Legal Heirs need to be identified and notices are required to be served to such Legal Heirs, being deemed assessees, in their names and in their capacity as Legal Heirs of the deceased. The said notices are required to be served within the time limitation prescribed. Moreover, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613 (SC)/416 ITR 613), participation in proceedings by the appellant cannot operate as estoppel against law. It is also held by the Courts that notice to assume jurisdiction, such as notice u/s.148, when issued in respect of a dead person/non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in section 292BB. Here, it would be appropriate to mention that the Apex Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. (2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC) had distinguished its judgement in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra) in upholding the assessment order in the name of the amalgamating company (non-existent entity) on the basis of peculiar facts of the case where ITR was filed and also assessment was completed in the name of non-existent company and the assessee never brought the fact of amalgamation to the notice of AO Further, the assessee had duly objected to the notice being issued in the name of the deceased. Moreover, in various judgments cited above, it has been held that the assessee was under no legal obligation to suo motu inform the Department on the demise of his father. It is accordingly held that no notice u/s.148 was validly served either on Sh. Vijay Gupta when he was alive or on the (deemed) assessee viz. the appellant, which renders the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. Therefore, proceedings carried out in pursuance of such wrongly-assumed jurisdiction are void ab-inito. Ground no.2 is accordingly allowed.”

7. At the time of hearing of the appeal the Ld. DR vehemently argued in support of the order passed by the Ld. AO.

8. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that admittedly the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of the father of the appellant who was no longer alive as on the date of issuance of the notice by the Department. Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, the Ld. Counsel Mr. S. Krishnan referred the provision of law envisaged in Sections 159(2), 159(2)(a), 159(2) (b) and 159(3) of the Act.

9. It was further contended by the Ld. Counsel that by virtue of section 159(3) of the Act the legal heir of the deceased shall be deemed to be an assessee and in that view of the matter in the event of death of a person, his legal heirs need to be identified and notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be served on such legal heirs within the limitation period in the absence of which there would be no proper assumption of jurisdiction and the subsequent proceedings would be bad in law as was his ultimate submission before us. In this regard he has relied upon very many judgments including the judgments passed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Braham Prakash v. ITO [2005] 275 ITR 242 (Delhi); Savita Kapila v. ACIT [2020] 118 com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502 (Delhi); Vipin Walia v. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 56/238 Taxman 1/382 ITR 19 (Delhi); judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan v. Income Tax Officer [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72 (Madras)/2018 (6) TMI 760. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613 (SC)/416 ITR 613 and in the case of Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (supra). In the absence of notice under Section 148 of the Act validly served either on the original assessee Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta when he was alive or on the deemed assessee being the legal heir of the assessee, the appellant before us renders the assumption of jurisdiction as invalid and therefore, liable to be quashed as prayed by the Id AR before us.

10. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record including the orders passed by the authorities below and the judgments relied upon. Under the present facts and circumstances of the matter it is evident that admittedly the original assessee passed away on 02.10.2015, therefore, no notice could have been served upon him in April 2016 and more so the dead person could not file the return of income as required by notice under Section 148 of the Act. Admittedly the notice was issued in the name of the deceased on 31.03.2016 i.e. at the fag end of the limitation prescribed under the law and it was incapable of being served upon him and in that view of the matter the entire proceedings become non-est in the eyes of law.

11. Having regard to the jurisdictional condition envisaged under Section 148 of the Act not met we have further considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case of Braham Prakash (supra), wherein on the identical facts and circumstances of the matter when the notice was not even found to have been served upon the deemed assessee, the subsequent proceedings were found to be bad in law as there was breach of the principle of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions contained in Section 148 of the Act.

12. In the case of Savita Kapila (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to observe categorically that the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asstt. CIT[2019] 103 com 188/262 Taxman 61/414 ITR 292 (Bombay)/(2019) 2 TMI one 209.

13. We have further considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Virappan (supra), wherein it has been further held that in the absence of statutory mandate, no responsibility could be cast upon the survivors of an assessee to intimate fact of his/her demise to the tax Department. It was held “there is no statutory requirement imposing an obligation of all legal heirs to intimate the death of the assessee”

14. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vipin Walia (supra) has been pleased to hold that “what was sought to be done by the ITO was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act against the deceased assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09. The limitation for issuance of the notice under section 147/148 of the Act was 31 March 2015. On 27 March, 2015 when the notice was issued, the assessee was already dead. If the department intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act, it could have been done so prior to 31 March, 2015 by issuing notice to the legal heirs of the deceased. Beyond that date it could not have proceeded in the matter even by issuing notice to the legal heirs of the assessee”. Needless to mention that the fact of the above matter is identical to the case in hand before us and thus the judgment is found to be applicable here.

15. We find that in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(supra), it is held that participation in proceedings by the appellant cannot operate in estoppel against law. It was further held that notice to assume jurisdiction, such as notice under section 148 of the Act, when issued in respect of a dead person/non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292BB of the Act. In the case in hand the legal heir of the assessee before us duly objected to the notice being issued in the name of the deceased. However, it has been time and again decided as already narrated hereinabove that it is neither the obligation on the part of the legal heir of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the fact of demise of the original assessee to the Department suo moto, the father of the assessee in the case in hand before us.

16. Section 159(2) of the Act makes a specific reference to the reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2) (a) of the Act speaks of a proceeding already taken against an assessee ‘before his death’, Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived. It further permits such a proceeding to be taken against the legal heirs of the deceased assessee even if it had not been taken while the assessee was alive. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act is, therefore, applicable to the case in hand. Taking into consideration this particular provision of law it was the duty incumbent upon the AO to initiate proceeding under Section 148 of the Act against the deceased assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. The limitation for issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act was 31 March 2016. However, on that particular day when the notice was issued the assessee was already dead. In that view of the matter if the Ld. AO intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act he could have done so prior to 31 March 2016 by issuing notice to the legal heir of the deceased. Beyond that date he could not have proceeded in the matter even by issuing notice to the legal heirs of the assessee.

17. We note that the notice issued in the name of a dead person is, thus, not a valid notice. In order to undertake the proceeding in respect of a deceased person the legal heirs need to be identified and notices are required to be served upon such legal heirs being deemed assessees, in the names and in that capacity as legal heirs of the deceased and that particular notices are required to be served within the statutory time limit prescribed, which is absent in the case in hand. As admittedly, no notice under Section 148 of the Act was served upon the original assessee when was alive or on the deemed assessee, the appellant before us having regard to the provision of law as narrated hereinabove, the entire proceeding is vitiated; the same is void ab initio and therefore, liable to be quashed which has been rightly taken care of by the Ld. CITA in the order impugned in deleting the addition made against the assessee; the same is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant any interference.

18. Since the legal issue argued on behalf of the assessee before us is addressed in favour of the assessee the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal have become of academic interest only and need not to be adjudicated upon.

19. The appeal preferred by the revenue is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed.”

8. Ld. AR also pointed out that in present case, the Legal Heir protested the impugned notice issued by AO in the name of deceased person and the factum of protest made by Legal Heir is very much acknowledged by Ld. AO himself in Para 3 of assessment-order. That apart, after raising protest, the Legal Heir did not participate further before Ld. AO.

9. With above submissions, Ld. AR contended that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2018 u/s 148 issued by Ld. AO in the name of deceased person must be declared as invalid in the light of provisions of section 159 and the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as other decisions quoted by him, consequently the assessment-proceeding done by Ld. AO must be quashed.

10. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the Ld. AO had no information about death of assessee and it was only on 30.11.2018 that the Legal Heir informed Ld. AO about death and on that day, the Ld. AO got knowledge of death. Since the time limit to issue notice u/s 148 had already expired by 30.11.2018 (the last date to issue notice u/s 148 was 31.03.2018), how could the AO issue a new/fresh notice to the Legal Heir? Therefore, the notice dated 28.03.2018 issued by AO in the name of deceased assessee was valid. He submitted that as soon as the Legal Heir intimated to Ld. AO about death of assessee, the Ld. AO thereafter took due care and passed final assessment-order dated 12.12.2018 in the name of Legal Heir and not in the name of deceased assessee. Thus, there is no lapse on the part of Ld. AO in present case. With this submission, Ld. DR prayed to uphold the assessment-proceeding done by Ld. AO.

11. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the case-record including the orders of lower-authorities in the light of legal provisions of section 159 and the judicial decisions cited before us.

12. The provisions to deal a situation of death of individual are prescribed in section 159 of the Act. Therefore, at first it is worthwhile to refer the provision of section 159:

“159. Legal representatives. –

1. Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased.

2. For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1).-

a. any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased;

b. any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and

c. all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.”

13. Thus, clause (a) of section 159(2) of the Act provides for a situation where a proceeding has already been initiated against the “deceased person” before death (i.e. during life-time). In that case, such proceeding shall be deemed to have been taken against the Legal Representative and can be continued against Legal Representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased. Further, the clause (b) of section 159(2) of the Act provides for another situation where any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the Legal Representative. Obviously, it means, the AO could issue notice u/s 148 to the Legal Representative and take up proceeding against the Legal Representative. In present case, however, the Ld. AO issued notice in the name of “deceased assessee” after death and thereafter continued proceeding against Legal Heir. This course of action is neither permitted in clause (a) nor in clause (b) of section 159(2).

14. We find that the claim of assessee that a notice issued to a deceased person is illegal, is well settled in the above-noted decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujrat (The SLP filed by revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court stands dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court) as well as other decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Hon’ble Kerala High Court and recent decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench narrated above. Those decisions have also taken into account the provision of section 159 as analysed by us in preceding para as well as the landmark decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613 (SC)/416 ITR 613) and (ii) Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. (2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC). Therefore, respectfully following the judicial decisions as also the provision of section 159 of the Act, we are inclined to hold that impugned notice u/s 148 issued in present case to the deceased assessee is not a valid notice in the eyes of law. Consequently, the assessment framed pursuant to illegal notice is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, quash the assessment-order passed by Ld. AO. The assessee succeeds in Ground No. 1.

15. Since we have quashed the assessment-order, there is no necessity to go into other grounds raised by assessee at this stage. Those grounds are left open, undecided.

16. In result, this appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 21/08/2026