Reassessment Notice Issued to a Deceased Person is Null and Void.

Issue

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A and 148 against a person who is already deceased are legally valid, particularly when the Income Tax Department had prior knowledge of the assessee’s death.

Facts

The assessee (the petitioner’s husband) had passed away.
The petitioner, his widow and legal heir, formally informed the Income Tax Department of his death.
The department had previously acknowledged this information and, as a result, had already dropped separate reassessment proceedings for a different year (AY 2013-14) on this very ground.
Despite this, the department initiated new reopening proceedings for the Assessment Year 2018-19, issuing a notice under Section 148A, an order under Section 148A(d), and a final notice under Section 148, all in the name of the deceased assessee.
The petitioner challenged these notices and the order as being a nullity in law.

Decision

The High Court ruled decisively in favour of the assessee.
It reaffirmed the settled legal principle that any notice issued to a dead person is null and void.
The court held that the entire proceeding, including the initial notice under Section 148A and the final notice under Section 148, was invalid from the start.
Consequently, the impugned notices and the order were quashed and set aside.

Key Takeaways

Proceedings Against a Deceased Person are Void: A notice issued to a person who is already dead is void ab initio (invalid from the very beginning). It is not a procedural or curable defect but a fundamental, jurisdictional error.
Knowledge of Death: The department’s error was particularly egregious as they had already been informed of the assessee’s death and had even acted upon that information by dropping a separate proceeding.
Correct Procedure is Against Legal Heir: The only valid course of action for the tax department is to initiate proceedings against the living legal representative(s) of the deceased, in their capacity as legal heirs, as per the provisions of Section 159 of the Income-tax Act.
A Nullity Cannot Be Cured: A proceeding that is a nullity cannot be saved or corrected; it is legally non-existent.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Neena Jatin Shah

Income-tax Officer

B. P. COLABAWALLA and AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23147 OF 2025

SEPTEMBER 30, 2025

Dharan V. Gandhi and Aanchal Vyas, Advs. for the Petitioner. Mamta Omle, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, the Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The above Writ Petition has been filed to quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 11th August 2024 issued under Section 148A(b); the impugned order dated 31st August 2024 passed under Section 148A(d); and the notice dated 31st August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “IT Act”). The assessment year in question is A.Y. 2018-19. The short point on which the said notices as well as the impugned order have been challenged is that they have been issued in the name of a dead person.

3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid notices, as well as the impugned order, have been issued/passed in the name of Jatin Bhagwandas Shah, who was the husband of the Petitioner. He expired on 23rd February 2019. In fact, the intimation of this death was informed to the Income Tax Department vide Petitioner’s letter dated 1st April 2019. Taking into consideration the death of Jatin Bhagwandas Shah, re-assessment proceedings initiated against him for Assessment Year 2013-14 were dropped by the Income Tax Department. The order passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act for A.Y. 2013-14 is dated 28th July 2022 and can be found at page Nos. 61 to 65 of the paperbook. In fact, in this order, the Income Tax Department notes that the Assessee expired on 25th February 2019, and the notice under Section 148 (for A.Y. 2013-14), was issued on 24th April 2021. Since the notice was issued to the deceased Assessee after his death, it was not a fit case for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2013-14.

4. Despite this, for A.Y. 2018-19, proceeding for re-opening the assessment of the deceased Assessee, Jatin Bhagwandas Shah, has been initiated in August 2024. It is now well settled that notice under Section 148 cannot be issued to a dead person, and if it is done, the same is null and void.

5. If one requires to refer to any decision on this aspect, the same is made clear in the decision of this Court in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asstt. CIT ITR 292 (Bombay). Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of this decision read thus:-

“6. In view of the above, the submission of the Revenue reiterating the grounds in the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 stands negatived on facts so far as grounds (b) i.e. registration as legal heir and (c) i.e. filing the return in the name of deceased assesee therein are concerned. It is not seriously disputed by the Revenue before us that a reopening notice issued in the name of a deceased person is null and void. This in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vikram Singh v. Union of India [2018] 401 ITR 302 rendered on 22.1.2018, a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO rendered on 19.11.2018 and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO 72. These Courts had occasion to consider an identical issue of notice of reopening in the name of the deceased assessee and after considering the same, came to the conclusion that the notice issued in the name of the dead person for reopening of assessment is null and void in law.

7. The issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a foundation for reopening of assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not a merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. Thus, a notice which has been issued in the name of the dead person is also not protected either by provisions of Section 292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This is evident from Section 148 of the Act, which requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment, a notice must be served upon the assessee. The assessee on whom the notie must be sent must be a living person i.e. legal heir of the deceased assessee, for the same to be responded. This in fact is the intent and purpose of the Act. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, both the impugned notice dated 29.3.2018 and the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 are quashed and set aside. It is made clear that this order will not prohibit the Revenue from issuing a fresh notice for reassessment, if requirement of Sections 147/148 of the Act are satisfied, including the limitation period therein.”

6. This decision, thereafter, has also been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra v. Addl. CIT /[2024] 461 ITR 463 (Bombay).

7. In light of the aforesaid decisions, we are clearly of the view that the impugned notices as well as the impugned order are not valid and cannot be allowed to stand.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

“(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 11.08.2024 (“Exhibit D”), the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act (“Exhibit E”) and the subsequent notice dated 31.08.2024 (“Exhibit F”) issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential notices.”

9. It is clarified that this order will not prohibit the Revenue from issuing a fresh notice to the legal heirs of the deceased Assessee Jatin Bhagwandas Shah if the requirements of Section 147/148 of the IT Act are satisfied, including the limitation period therein.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof. No order as to costs.

11. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.