Income tax notice under s. 143(2) sent to deceased taxpayer, leading to s. 144 assessment-proceedings quashed as void.

The dominant issue was whether a notice u/s 143(2) and a best-judgment assessment u/s 144 issued/passed in the name of a deceased assessee were valid. The Tribunal held that issuance of the jurisdictional notice after the assessee's death rendered the proceedings non est, and the defect could not be cured by s. 292B, since assessment jurisdiction cannot arise from an invalid notice. Relying on HC authority that notices to dead persons are unenforceable and SC law that assessment cannot be made on a deceased individual, it set aside the notice and consequential assessment. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether assessment proceedings initiated and continued on the basis of a statutory notice issued under section 143(2) in the name of a deceased assessee are legally valid, and whether the consequential ex parte assessment under section 144 can survive.

(ii) Whether subsequent notices (including under section 142(1) and show cause notices) and the appellate proceedings/order passed in the name of the deceased assessee are a nullity, warranting quashing of the appellate order as well.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Validity of jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) issued to a deceased person and sustainability of assessment under section 144

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal treated the notice under section 143(2) as the statutory notice "which enables the AO to carry out assessment", i.e., a jurisdictional foundation for completing the assessment. The Tribunal also considered whether such a defect could be cured, noting that a notice issued on a dead person is not saved even by section 292B, as applied in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found as a fact that the assessee had died prior to issuance of the section 143(2) notice, and that the Assessing Officer was intimated of the death during assessment proceedings (and the fact of such intimation was acknowledged in the assessment order). Despite this, the section 143(2) notice was issued in the name of the deceased. The Tribunal held that once the foundational notice is issued to a dead person, the assessment cannot be undertaken "without curing the notices", and proceedings founded upon such invalid notice are unenforceable. The Tribunal treated the defect as going to the root of jurisdiction, rendering the entire assessment proceedings void.

Conclusion: The Tribunal conclusively held that the notice under section 143(2) issued in the name of a deceased person is invalid and non est, and therefore the consequential assessment order passed under section 144 cannot be sustained. Both the section 143(2) notice and the section 144 assessment order were quashed.

Issue (ii): Effect of conducting further proceedings and passing appellate order in the name of the deceased assessee

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal proceeded on the settled principle, applied to the facts before it, that "any proceedings against a dead person is a nullity," including statutory notices and consequential orders issued in the name of a deceased individual.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recorded that, even after knowledge of death, various notices under section 142(1) and show cause notice were issued in the name of the deceased assessee. It further found that the appellate authority also issued notices under section 250 in the name of the deceased and ultimately passed the appellate order in the deceased's name, rather than in the name of the deceased represented through the legal heir. Given the Tribunal's determination that the assessment itself was void for being founded on an invalid jurisdictional notice and that proceedings against a dead person are null, it held that the appellate order could not stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the appellate order as well, holding that the proceedings having been undertaken in the name of a dead person were legally unsustainable and a nullity.

---