2026 (1) TMI 450 - AT - Income Tax

Reassessment notice issued to deceased taxpayer u/s148: jurisdictional defect; proceedings void unless served on legal representative

A reassessment initiated under s.147 was challenged on the ground that the s.148 notice was issued in the name of a deceased assessee. The Tribunal held ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 in the name of the deceased assessee - issuance of notice to the legal representative - duty to issue valid notice - HELD THAT:- The legal position is well settled that a notice issued u/s 148 in the name of a deceased person is invalid and does not vest the AO with jurisdiction. Judicial authorities, including Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel [2019 (1) TMI 353 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Savita Kapila [2020 (7) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT] have consistently held that reassessment cannot be initiated against a dead person and that section 159 mandates issuance of notice to the legal representative alone. It is further settled that section 292B cannot cure this substantive defect, nor can any alleged failure on the part of the legal heir to intimate the death validate an otherwise void notice. The essential jurisdictional requirement of issuing notice to a person existing in law was therefore not met. During the course of hearing, the learned DR could not rebut the binding judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, nor could he cite any authoritative supporting the case of the revenue. AO initiated proceedings nearly seven years after the assessee’s death. Basic verification, such as enquiry from the reporting bank or jurisdictional record, would have revealed the death, enabling the AO to proceed in accordance with section 159. The absence of such verification underscores the jurisdictional lapse. The validity of a notice under section 148 cannot depend on whether the legal heir informed the department of the death. Judicial precedents make it clear that the duty to issue valid notice rests solely on the Assessing Officer. Issuing notice to a dead person is a substantive illegality which renders the reassessment void ab initio and not curable by section 292B. Since the legal heir did not waive or submit to jurisdiction, the defect remains fatal. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues: Whether notices issued under section 148A(b) and section 148 in the name of a person who had died prior to issuance of the notices are valid and whether reassessment proceedings initiated thereon are maintainable.Analysis: The factual position establishes that the notices under section 148A(b), section 148A(d) and section 148 were issued after the assessee's death. Judicial authorities treat issuance of a notice under section 148 to a deceased person as incapable of conferring jurisdiction; section 159 requires notice to the legal representative. Section 292B does not cure a substantive defect of initiating proceedings against a non-existent person. The appellate authority remitted the matter for fresh consideration without ruling on this foundational jurisdictional objection, necessitating determination whether the initiation itself was legally sustainable.Conclusion: Notices issued under section 148A(b) and section 148 in the name of the deceased are invalid and void ab initio and the reassessment proceedings initiated thereon are quashed; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 148 issued to a deceased person is void ab initio and cannot confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer; valid notice must be issued to the legal representative under section 159, and procedural provisions cannot cure this substantive defect.