Reassessment Orders Quashed as Notices Were Issued to a Deceased Person.

Issue

Whether reassessment proceedings (including notices under Section 148 and final assessment orders) are legally valid if they are initiated and completed in the name and PAN of a taxpayer who is already deceased, especially when the tax department was formally informed of the death.

Facts

The original assessee passed away on December 4, 2014.
On January 23, 2015, the legal heir (his wife) formally informed the Income Tax Department of her husband’s death and submitted the death certificate.
Despite this, in 2018 (years later), the department initiated reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.
All notices under Section 148 and the subsequent final assessment orders under Sections 144/147 were issued in the name and PAN of the deceased assessee.
The Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly sustained these invalid assessment orders.

Decision

The High Court (implied) ruled decisively in favour of the assessee (the legal heir).
It held that a valid notice under Section 148 is the “foundation stone” for any reassessment proceeding.
To acquire valid jurisdiction, such a notice must be addressed to the correct, living person (i.e., the legal representative), not to a deceased individual.
The assessment orders passed in the name of the deceased assessee were, therefore, void ab initio (void from the beginning) and without jurisdiction.
The court quashed the entire proceedings.

Key Takeaways

No Assessment on a Dead Person: It is a fundamental legal principle that proceedings cannot be initiated or concluded against a person who is deceased. Such an action is a legal nullity.
Jurisdictional Defect, Not a Curable Error: Issuing a notice to a dead person is not a minor, curable procedural defect. It is a fatal jurisdictional error that invalidates the entire assessment.
Knowledge of Department: The department’s error was even more severe because it had been formally put on notice of the assessee’s death years before initiating the invalid proceedings.
Correct Procedure (Section 159): The only valid way for the department to proceed would have been to issue the notices in the name of the legal representative(s) of the deceased, in accordance with Section 159 of the Income-tax Act.

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘E’

Lalita Agarwal

ACIT^*

Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member
and S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member

IT Appeal Nos. 5663, 5664, 5665, 5666 & 5667 (Delhi) of 2024
[Assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15]

NOVEMBER 12, 2025

Piyush Kaushik, Adv. and Saurabh Tondon, FCA for the Appellant. Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the respective orders passed by the NFAC, Delhi for AYrs 2011-12 to 201415. The common solitary issue raised in all the 05 appeals is as regards to challenging the reopening notice u/s. 148 alongwith the assessment order issued in the name and importantly in the PAN No. of the Deceased.

2. Brief facts are required to be stated that Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal having PAN: AANPA3967D was expired on 4.12.2014. On 16.01.2015 a query letter issued by the ITO (Investigation Wing)-7 issued in the name of deceased Subhash Chandra Agarwal raising certain queries; on 23.01.2015 the legal heir of deceased Subhash Chandra Agarwal i.e. his wife Lalita Agarwal vide her categorical letter informed the department about the demise of Subhash Chandra Agarwal and a copy of death certificate was also submitted. On 29.03.2016 notice u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased and in the PAN No. AANPA3967D for AY 2009-10. On 29.3.2017 notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in the name of deceased for AY 2010-11; on 12.08.2016 assessment order was framed u/s. 147 in the case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal for AY 2009-10 and issued in the PAN of the deceased; on 31.7.2017 assessment order was framed u/s. 147 in the case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal for AY 20 10-11and issued in the PAN of the deceased. On 22.3.2018 notice u/s. 148 issued in the name and PAN of the deceased Subhash Chandra Agarwal for the AY 2011-12 and 201213. On 21.8.2018 notice u/s. 148 issued in the name and PAN of the deceased Subhash Chandra Agarwal for AYrs 2013-14 & 2014-15. On 31.12.2018 assessment order u/s. 144/147 framed in the PAN No. of the deceased Subhash Chandra Agarwal for 2011-12 & AY 2012-13. On 29.12.2019 Assessment u/s 144/147 was framed in the PAN of the deceased for AYrs. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Thus, it was apparent that for all the above said assessment years, the notices were issued on the deceased assessee and on the PAN No. of that deceased assessee. Further, Ld. AR submitted a paper book narrating the above facts and submitting the copies of notices and assessment orders to demonstrate that notices as well as the assessment has been passed in the name of deceased assessee and on PAN of the deceased person. For all these assessment years, assessment orders on legal heir and wife of the assessee have been separately passed in the PAN number of the assessee, Lalita Agarwal and in all those orders no assessment has been done with respect to income of deceased Subhash Chandra Agarwal. It was submitted that the assessment income of Late Subhash Chandra Agarwal for the AYrs 2011-12 to AY 2014-15 has been done in the PAN Number of Late Subhash Chandra Agarwal who already stood expired as on the date of issue of respective assessment order, hence, the said assessment orders become a complete nullity. It was further submitted that on 28.12.2020 the ITAT Delhi in assessee’s own case on identical facts and grounds for preceding three years i.e. AY 2008-09, 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 allowed the appeals of the assessee.

3. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4. We have carefully considered the facts narrated above in these appeals wherein the notice under section 148 was issued in the name of a deceased assessee stating his PAN Number. Further the assessment orders are also farmed in the name of the deceased assesse stating his PAN Number. We find that this common issue before us is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila v. ACIT dated 16.7.2020 reported in 6 ITR 502 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that there is no legal requirement that legal representative should report death of an assessee to the income tax department. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the assessment order is not correct. The sustenance of a notice under section 148 of the Act is the foundation stone on which subsequent re-assessment proceedings are built up. To acquire the valid jurisdiction necessarily such notices are to be addressed to the correct person and not a deceased. We further note that the ITAT Delhi in assessee’s own case on identical facts and grounds for preceding three years i.e. AY 2008-09, 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 allowed the appeals of the assessee by following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila (supra).

5. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we quash the assessment orders passed in all the 05 appeals and allow the common Ground of Appeal raised in all the captioned appeals.

6. In the result, all the 05 appeals of the assessee are allowed in the aforesaid manner.