Reassessment Notice Issued Against a Deceased Person is a Nullity and Must Be Quashed.

Issue

Whether a reassessment proceeding, including the notice under Section 148A and Section 148, can be validly initiated in the name of a person who is already deceased, and whether such a proceeding is legally sustainable.

Facts

The Assessing Officer (AO) sought to reopen an assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The reason for the reopening was a capital gain allegedly made by the assessee’s father from a property sale.
The AO issued a notice under Section 148A, passed an order under Section 148A(d), and issued a final reassessment notice under Section 148, all in the name of the assessee’s late father.
The father had expired much earlier than the date these notices were issued.
The assessee (the son and legal representative) had informed the AO in writing about his father’s death, but this information was not considered.
The assessee filed a writ petition to quash the entire proceeding.

Decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the assessee.
It held that any proceeding initiated or notice issued against a dead person is a nullity in the eyes of the law.
The court found that the AO’s action was legally invalid from the very beginning.
Consequently, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were quashed and set aside.

Key Takeaways

Proceedings Against a Deceased Person are Void: A notice issued to a dead person has no legal effect. It is not a procedural error that can be corrected but a fundamental, jurisdictional defect that renders the entire proceeding invalid.
Not a Curable Defect: This is not a mistake that can be saved. The proceeding is void ab initio (from the beginning).
Correct Procedure: 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.
Ignoring Information is Fatal: The AO’s failure to act upon the letter informing them of the taxpayer’s death further invalidated the proceedings, demonstrating a clear non-application of mind.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Bipinbhai

Income-tax Officer

BHARGAV D. KARIA and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPL. NO. 7868 of 2023

OCTOBER 7, 2025

Rajkumar S Mistry for the Petitioner. Ms Maithili D Mehta for the Respondent.

ORDER

Bhargav D. Karia, J.- Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajkumar S. Mistry for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Niraj Garg for learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, for the respondent.

2. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as the Notice dated 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the respondent in respect of the Assessment Year 2016-17 in the name of his late father Mr. Melaji Bhalaji Bhoi, alleging that the income for the year under consideration, has escaped assessment, is not tenable as the father of the petitioner has expired on 30.05.2020, much earlier than the issuance of the impugned Notice.

3.1 It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Notice dated 09.02.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana for alleged escapement of the income to the tune of Rs.2,11,93,899/- on the ground that there was a sale of the immovable property by the late father of the petitioner for the year under consideration. It was submitted that the petitioner filed detailed reply on 21.02.2023, informing the Assessing Officer at Mehsana that father of the petitioner has expired and at the relevant time, he was residing at Ahmedabad and therefore, the Assessing Officer, Ahmedabad would have the jurisdiction, as provided in the Act. The petitioner has also provided the Death Certificate of his father along with the Reply. The petitioner also submitted that there was no escapement of any income.

4. It appears that without issuing any further notice, the respondent – Assessing Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad passed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act observing as under:

“4. However, the assessee again not responded to the show cause notice issued to. The assessee neither replied to query letter nor to show cause notice issued to him. This shows that the assessee has nothing to explain about the gain on selling of immovable property. Therefore, in the light of the above reasons, information and material available on record, I am of the considered view that the assessee has failed to explain the above mentioned transactions and income earned/derived there from, during the year under consideration and the same remained unexplained and unsubstantiated as per the relevant provisions of the Act. Hence, on the basis of material available on record which establish that the income chargeable to tax in respect of above mentioned unexplained transactions of Rs.2,11,93,899/- which is being represented in the form of assets, (as defined in Explanation to Section 149 of the Act) has escaped assessment for FY 2015-16 and therefore, this is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17.”

5. In view of the above facts, it is apparent that the Notice under Section 148A(b)of the Act was not issued by the respondent -Assessing Officer situated at Ahmedabad and is issued without any information or intimation to the petitioner or recording of the issuance of the Notice by the Assessing Officer at Mehsana, and the impugned order is passed ignoring the reply filed by the petitioner by observing that no reply is tendered.

6. In view of the above facts, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the Notice are patently without jurisdiction on two counts; firstly, the Assessing Officer at Ahmedabad had never issued the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and secondly, the impugned order and Notice are issued against the dead person. Therefore, on both the counts, the petition deserves to be allowed, in view of the settled legal position as held by this Court in case of ITO v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai (SC), wherein it is held and observed that Notice issued for commencement of assessment or reassessment proceedings against the dead person is null and void and the notice which has been issued against the assessee could not be sustained.

7. The facts of the present case are similar to the decision in the case of Himadri Kandarp Mehta v. ITO ITR 92 (Gujarat). This Court has followed the above decisions in the case of Nishant Daxeshbhai Mehta v. ITO (Gujarat)/Special Civil Application No.5512 of 2023 and has quashed such Notice issued against the dead person.

8. In the present case also, the petitioner had informed the Assessing Officer at Mehsana about death of his father by letter dated 21.02.2023, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer at Ahmedabad, and therefore, he could not have passed any order under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as issued the Notice under Section 148 of the Act, in view of the well settled principles that any proceedings against the dead person is a nullity. Additionally, in the facts of the case, no notice was issued by the respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

9. In view of the above facts emerging from the record pursuant to such invalid and unforceable notice, any order passed below the notice also becomes illegal, unenforceable which requires to be quashed and set aside.

10. Resultantly, the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 21.03.2023 and Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2023 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed.