TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shing and setting aside of the order dated 29th June 2025 ('Impugned Order') passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and the consequential reopening notice of even date issued under Section 148 of the Act ('Impugned Notice') for Assessment Year ('A.Y.') 2021-22. The short point on which the Impugned Order and the Impugned Notice are challenged is that they arise from reopening proceedings initiated by a Show Cause Notice dated 31st March 2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 148A(1) of the Act ('SCN') in the name of a deceased person. 3. The Petitioner is the son and legal heir of the late Mr. Balkrishna Sohanlal Harlalka ('Deceased Assessee'). The deceased Assessee passed away on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the SCN under Section 148A(1) of the Act was issued to a non-existent person, and was therefore, null and void. He submitted that all subsequent proceedings, including the Impugned Order and the Impugned Notice, founded upon a void SCN are equally without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sumit Balkrishna Gupta V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay)]. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in N. Binoj V/S Income-tax Officer, [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 469 (Kerala)]. He, accordingly, prayed that the Impugned Order, the Impugned Notice and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. A Show Cause Notice addressed to a person who was no longer alive on the date of its issuance does not satisfy this statutory requirement. 10. It is now well settled that the issuance of a Notice to the correct person is not merely a procedural requirement, but a foundational requirement for acquiring jurisdiction. In Sumit Balkrishna Gupta (supra), this Court held that a Notice of reopening under Section 148 of the Act issued to a dead person is a foundational and substantial error which cannot be cured under Sections 292B or 292BB of the Act. The same principle must apply to the mandatory Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act, upon which the order under Section 148A(3) and the Notice under Section 148 are founded. A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to initiate reopening against a person after his death, and thereafter cure that defect by substituting the legal representative at a later stage, especially when the death of the Assessee was already within the knowledge of the Department as on the date of initiation of proceedings. 13. The fact that the Petitioner raised his objections to the SCN by filing a reply does not alter the position. The reply expressly raised the jurisdictional objection at the outset, regarding the SCN being invalid on account of the same being issued to the deceased Assessee. In any event, participation cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists, and it cannot cure the jurisdictional defect in context of a Notice issued to a dead person. 14. In these ....