TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17. The said order arises from the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] vide order dated 29.01.2024 in the case of Late Sudhir Himmatlal Sheth. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee, an individual stated to be proprietor of M/s. Shubhlaxmi Jewellers, did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. On examination of information available on departmental records, the Assessing Officer recorded that during the relevant previous year the assessee had undertaken the following financial transactions: i. Cash deposits in one or more bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 18,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the absence of any return. 2.5 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed written submission. It was submitted that the assessee was an individual who had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 and that the assessee had expired on 23.05.2016. A copy of the death certificate was furnished. It was pointed out that all the notices remained unattended for the simple reason that the assessee had already expired much prior to issuance of the first notice under section 148. 2.6 On this factual foundation, it was contended that the notice under section 148 dated 18.03.2023 and the consequential assessment framed under section 147 read with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the specific jurisdictional ground relating to the validity of the notice issued under section 148 in the name of the deceased assessee. Instead, without deciding the core issue, the learned CIT(A) proceeded to set aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after considering the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The learned AR, therefore, urged that the reassessment proceedings be held to be invalid and the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), to the extent it remits the matter without adjudicating the jurisdictional challenge, be set aside. 3.1 The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l heir had specifically raised a jurisdictional objection before the learned CIT(A), contending that the notice under section 148 issued to a deceased person was a nullity. Reliance was placed on binding judicial precedents holding that reassessment against a dead person is void ab initio. However, the learned CIT(A) did not deal with this foundational challenge. Instead, the learned CIT(A) set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering additional evidence under Rule 46A, without first determining whether the very initiation of proceedings was legally sustainable. 4.2 Before us, the learned AR reiterated that the reassessment was void since both the notices under section 148A(b) and section 148 were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, such as enquiry from the reporting bank or jurisdictional record, would have revealed the death, enabling the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with section 159. The absence of such verification underscores the jurisdictional lapse. 4.5 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. 4.6 In view of the consistent judicial....