Income Tax reopening notice issued to deceased assessee quashed under Section 148A proceedings deemed invalid

Gujarat HC quashed reopening notice under Section 148A(b) issued against deceased assessee. Court held that notice issued in name of deceased person who expired in 2020 was not sustainable, despite petitioner being registered as legal heir. The order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were also issued in deceased's name, rendering entire proceedings invalid. Petition was allowed and impugned notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Court are:

(1) Whether the issuance of notices and orders under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased assessee, when the petitioner is the duly registered legal heir, is valid and sustainable.

(2) Whether the respondent authority had jurisdiction to issue such notices and pass orders against the deceased person despite the petitioner's registration as legal heir on the Income Tax portal.

(3) Whether the procedural requirements under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, including the issuance of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, were complied with and whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was justified.

(4) The applicability and effect of the legal heir registration on the procedural and substantive validity of the impugned notices and orders.

(5) The scope and nature of proceedings under Section 148A as summary proceedings and the extent of judicial scrutiny permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of Notices and Orders Issued in the Name of Deceased Person

The legal framework involves the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Sections 147, 148, and the newly inserted Section 148A, which governs reopening of assessments and the procedural safeguards therein. Section 148A mandates issuance of a show-cause notice under subsection (b) and an order under subsection (d) before reopening an assessment.

Precedents cited by the petitioner include recent decisions from the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court that emphasize the necessity of issuing notices and orders to the correct legal entity, especially where the original assessee is deceased and a legal heir is registered. These include rulings that hold notices issued to deceased persons without involving their legal heirs are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

The Court noted that the petitioner had duly registered herself as the legal heir of the deceased on the Income Tax portal and had filed returns accordingly for subsequent assessment years. Despite this, the respondent issued the impugned notices and orders in the name of the deceased, Shri Yogesh Somalal Joshi.

The respondent contended that the legal heir details were not reflected on the ITBA portal at the time of issuance of notices, justifying issuance in the deceased's name. However, the Court observed that the petitioner's registration as legal heir was undisputed and that the notices issued to the deceased were not sustainable.

The Court's reasoning was that once the legal heir is registered and recognized, notices and orders must be directed to the legal heir and not to the deceased, as the deceased is no longer a legal entity capable of responding to proceedings.

The Court therefore held that the impugned notices under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the notice under Section 148 issued in the name of the deceased were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

2. Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance under Section 148A

The respondent's defense relied on the fact that reopening was initiated pursuant to information received under the risk management strategy formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, alleging unexplained accommodation entries in the form of bogus donations. The reopening was thus justified under Section 147 read with Section 148.

The respondent also emphasized that no response was received from the petitioner to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b), and the order under Section 148A(d) was passed after competent authority approval. The respondent relied on a recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court which described proceedings under Section 148A as summary in nature, requiring only a brief order indicating the "fit case" for reassessment without detailed findings.

The petitioner's counsel distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the respondent, particularly noting that in those cases the assessee had responded to the show-cause notice, including informing the assessing officer about the death of the original assessee. Here, no such response was received, but the petitioner had registered herself as legal heir and had filed returns accordingly, which should have been reflected on the portal.

The Court found that the procedural infirmity of issuing notices to the deceased and not the legal heir was a fatal flaw, notwithstanding the respondent's reliance on the risk management strategy and summary nature of Section 148A proceedings. The Court observed that the legal heir's registration imposes a duty on the department to issue notices to the legal heir and not the deceased.

3. Effect of Legal Heir Registration on Proceedings

The petitioner's registration as legal heir on the Income Tax portal and filing of returns in that capacity for subsequent assessment years was a crucial fact. The Court held that this registration effectively substituted the petitioner in place of the deceased for the purposes of assessment proceedings.

The Court noted that the respondent's failure to update legal heir details on the ITBA portal did not justify issuing notices to the deceased. The legal heir's status must be recognized and notices must be issued accordingly.

The Court allowed the petition with the observation that the respondent is free to issue notices to the petitioner as the legal heir if permissible under law, thereby preserving the department's right to proceed lawfully.

Significant Holdings

"It is not in dispute that impugned notice under Section 148A(b) is issued in name of Shri Yoghesh Somalal Joshi who had already expired on 09/06/2020. The petitioner is already registered as legal heir of late Shri Yoghesh Somalal Joshi. The order under Section 148A(d) is also passed in name of the deceased Shri Yoghesh Somalal Joshi as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act is also issued in his name. Therefore, impugned notice under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(b) as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act are not sustainable as the same are issued against the deceased person."

Core principles established include:

(a) Notices and orders under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act must be issued to the correct legal entity. Where the original assessee is deceased and the legal heir is registered, such proceedings must be directed to the legal heir.

(b) Issuance of notices or orders to a deceased person is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

(c) Registration of legal heir on the Income Tax portal and filing of returns in that capacity effectively substitutes the legal heir in place of the deceased for assessment proceedings.

(d) The procedural safeguards under Section 148A, including issuance of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, are summary in nature but must be complied with in form and substance directed to the correct party.

(e) The department's failure to update legal heir details on the portal does not justify invalid issuance of notices to the deceased.

Final determinations:

The impugned notices under Section 148A(b), order under Section 148A(d), and notice under Section 148 dated 28.03.2023 and 24.04.2023 respectively, issued in the name of the deceased, are quashed and set aside. The respondent is permitted to issue notices to the petitioner as legal heir in accordance with law.

---