Reassessment Quashed Because Notices Were Issued to a Dead Person

Aman Ghai Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

AO Knew Assessee Was Dead, Yet Issued 148A: Complete Collapse of Proceedings- Reassessment in Name of Dead Person Is Void Ab Initio:

Faceless or Not, Dead Person Can’t Be Assessed -Jurisdiction Ends With Death—Reassessment Declared Non Est-  Dead Can’t Be Reassessed: ITAT Quashes Notice Issued With Death Certificate Attached

Delhi ITAT ‘SMC’ Bench in Aman Ghai (Legal Heir of Late Shri Anil Kumar Ghai) Vs. ITO  [ITA No. 7227/Del/2025, AY 2016-17, order dated 16.12.2025] allowed Assessee’s appeal and quashed reassessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person. Original Assessee had filed return for AY 2016-17 and expired on 15.02.2018. Legal Heirs had duly informed the Department about the death. Despite this, AO issued notice u/s 148 in the name of deceased, annexing even the death certificate, clearly evidencing knowledge of death. Post Ashish Agarwal (SC), the notice was treated as show-cause u/s 148A(b), yet again issued in name of deceased, followed by order u/s 148A(d), notice u/s 148 and final assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B — all in name of dead person. Tribunal held that reassessment initiated against a non-existent person is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Relying on Delhi HC in Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT, Tribunal observed that even otherwise legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate death, and once AO had knowledge of death, proceedings could not be sustained. Consequently, entire reassessment proceedings were held non est and quashed

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 18.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. Shri Suresh Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessment order dated 10.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is bad in law as the same has been passed in the name of a dead person.

3. Narrating facts of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee filed his original return of income for AY 2016-17 on 23.12.2017. Thereafter, the assessee Shri Anil Kumar Ghai died on 15.02.2018. The Legal Heirs (LRs) of the assessee informed the Department about the death of Shri Anil Kumar Ghai. The case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued in the name of deceased. Copy of the notice served through email is at page no. 5 & 6 of the paper book. The ld. AR pointed that a perusal of communication from the Department at page 5 would show that along with the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) had also attached death certificate of Shri Anil Kumar Ghai. Thus, the AO was well aware of the fact of death of Shri Anil Kumar Ghai. Later on consequent to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the notice already issued under unamended section 148 of the Act was held to be show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 26.05.2022 in the name of Shir Anil Kumar Ghai deceased. The fact of death of Anil Kumar Ghai was in the knowledge of the AO still the order u/s.148A(d) and the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was in the name of deceased Shri Anil Kumar Ghai. Even, the assessment order dated 10.05.2023 was passed in the name of deceased. The AR of the assessee thus prayed for quashing the assessment proceeding and the assessment order in the name of dead person.

4. Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The fact that the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act and the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom including the assessment order is in the name of dead person has not been controverted by the Department. As is evident from the communication of initial notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, it was in the knowledge of the AO that Shri Anil Kumar Ghari had died as the AO had annexed a copy of death certificate of Shri Anil Kumar Ghai along with notice u/s.148 of the Act. It is no more res-integra that assessment in the name of a dead person is unsustainable as it is without jurisdiction.

6. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, 118 com 46 (Delhi) has held that legal heirs of the deceased are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of assessee to the Department. In the instant case, the LRs of the assessee had informed the AO about the death of Shri Anil Kumar Ghai, still the AO issued notice u/s.148A(b) & 148 of the Act in the name of deceased. Thus, in light of the fact that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in the name of a dead person, the notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act is void-ab-initio as a consequence the subsequent proceeding arising therefrom are vitiated, hence, non-est.

7. In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 16^th day of December, 2025.