2026 (3) TMI 1420 - HC - Income Tax

Proceedings against a deceased assessee are void when initiated after death; legal representatives can be proceeded against only in valid continuation.

Assessment and demand proceedings issued in the name of a person after death are a foundational jurisdictional defect and are not cured as a procedural ... Notice to a dead person - Validity of consequential assessment proceedings - mandate of Section 159(1) - Proceedings against legal representatives HELD THAT: - The Court held that it was undisputed that the impugned proceedings had been drawn against a person who had already died. Relying on Meet Lalwani v. Income-tax Officer and another [2023 (11) TMI 1196 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] Court accepted the principle that a notice issued to a dead person and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are null and void. As further held that proceedings against legal representatives could be continued only where proceedings had already been initiated while the assessee was alive; such provisions could not validate initiation itself after death. Since, in the present case, the proceedings were admittedly initiated after the demise of the assessee, the defect went to the root of jurisdiction. [Paras 6, 7, 8] Final Conclusion: The Court held that the department could not initiate reassessment-related proceedings against a deceased person, and that the machinery relating to legal representatives did not cure such initiation after death. The impugned proceedings were accordingly set aside in entirety. Issues: Whether assessment and demand proceedings initiated in the name of a person who had already died are valid, and whether the legal representatives can be proceeded against under the statutory scheme only in continuation of proceedings lawfully initiated during the lifetime of the deceased.Analysis: The proceedings under Section 148A(d) and the consequential assessment and demand notices were issued after the assessee's death. The statutory scheme under Section 159 permits action against legal representatives where proceedings are continued after having been validly initiated while the assessee was alive, but it does not authorise fresh proceedings in the name of a deceased person. A notice issued to a dead person is a foundational jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured as a mere procedural irregularity.Conclusion: The proceedings initiated against the deceased assessee were invalid and unsustainable. The challenge succeeded, and the orders and notices were set aside.