Reassessment notices to deceased taxpayers are jurisdictionally void and require timely initiation directly against legal representatives.

Reassessment against a deceased assessee requires valid and timely initiation directly against the legal representative. Section 159 permits continuation of proceedings validly begun during the assessee's lifetime and permits fresh proceedings against the legal representative, but does not authorise notice in the deceased person's name. A notice under Section 148 issued to a deceased person is a jurisdictional nullity, not a curable defect under Section 292B; participation cannot validate it under Section 292BB. Equitable doctrines cannot create statutory reassessment jurisdiction. Quashing such notice does not constitute a finding or direction enabling a fresh time-barred notice under Section 150.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 validates reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee who had died before initiation. (ii) Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued to a deceased assessee is curable under Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the legal representative waived the jurisdictional objection through filing a return or participating in proceedings under Section 292BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (iv) Whether reassessment proceedings may be sustained on equitable grounds despite non-fulfilment of statutory jurisdictional requirements. (v) Whether quashing the invalid reassessment notice constitutes a finding or direction permitting a fresh notice beyond limitation under Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 validates reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee who had died before initiation.

Analysis: Section 159(2)(a) permits continuation against a legal representative only where proceedings were validly commenced during the assessee's lifetime. Section 159(2)(b) permits proceedings that could have been initiated against the deceased to be initiated directly against the legal representative, who is deemed to be an assessee; it does not authorise initiation in the name of a dead person. No statutory duty requires legal representatives to intimate the Department of the assessee's death.

Conclusion: Section 159 does not validate proceedings initiated against a deceased assessee; a fresh notice had to be issued directly to the legal representative within the prescribed limitation. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued to a deceased assessee is curable under Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: A valid notice under Section 148 is the foundational condition for assumption of reassessment jurisdiction and must be addressed to a legally existing person. A notice issued to a deceased person is not a technical mistake, defect, or omission in substance conforming to the Act, but an inherent jurisdictional defect. Section 292B cannot cure such a defect or permit substitution of the legal representative after initiation.

Conclusion: The notice issued to the deceased assessee was void ab initio and was not curable under Section 292B; all consequential proceedings were null and void. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the legal representative waived the jurisdictional objection through filing a return or participating in proceedings under Section 292BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 292BB applies where the assessee has appeared or cooperated without timely objecting to defective service. Here, the assessee was already dead, and the legal representative raised the jurisdictional objection from the outset rather than furnishing material in response to the inquiry notices. In any event, participation, waiver, acquiescence, or consent cannot confer statutory jurisdiction or create an estoppel against law.

Conclusion: Section 292BB did not validate the notice or constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional objection by the legal representative. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether reassessment proceedings may be sustained on equitable grounds despite non-fulfilment of statutory jurisdictional requirements.

Analysis: Tax liability and reassessment jurisdiction must arise strictly from the statutory language. Equitable doctrines, including estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, approbate and reprobate, cannot supply a jurisdictional condition omitted by the statute. Although filing and electronic verification of the deceased's return was contrary to the statutory scheme, that conduct could not confer jurisdiction upon the Revenue; action regarding that conduct remains governed independently by law.

Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained on equitable considerations where the mandatory statutory conditions for jurisdiction are absent. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether quashing the invalid reassessment notice constitutes a finding or direction permitting a fresh notice beyond limitation under Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 150(1) removes the ordinary limitation only where reassessment is necessary to give effect to a finding or direction in a qualifying proceeding. An order merely declaring the initiation against a deceased person void ab initio neither directs reassessment nor supplies a finding requiring a fresh notice. Section 150 cannot be used to revive proceedings where the period for valid issuance of notice to the legal representative under Section 149 has expired.

Conclusion: The quashing order is not a finding or direction under Section 150(1), and the Revenue cannot issue a fresh notice to the legal representative beyond limitation on that basis. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A reassessment jurisdiction can be exercised against the estate of a deceased assessee only through a valid and timely statutory initiation against the legal representative; an initiation addressed to the deceased has no legal foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice initiating reassessment must be issued to a legally existing assessee or, after death, directly to the legal representative within limitation; a notice to a deceased person is a non-curable jurisdictional nullity that cannot be validated by statutory deeming provisions, participation, equity, or a subsequent court order.

---