Section 148 Reassessment Notice Issued to a Deceased Assessee

Section 148 Reassessment Notice Issued to a Deceased Assessee Is Invalid and Void Ab Initio

Issue

Whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a deceased assessee is invalid and non-est in law when no notice was subsequently issued to the registered legal representative.

Facts

Assessment Year: 2021-22.
Issuance of Notice: A notice under Section 148 dated 29-03-2025 was issued by the Assessing Officer in the name of a deceased person.
Legal Heir Registration: The petitioner registered himself as the legal heir of the deceased assessee on 05-05-2025.
Acceptance by Department: The Income Tax Department formally accepted the petitioner as the legal heir on 08-05-2025.
Failure to Issue Fresh Notice: Despite accepting the legal representative on record, the Assessing Officer did not issue any reassessment notice under Section 148 to the petitioner as the legal representative.

Decision

Held in favor of the assessee.
A Section 148 notice issued to a dead person is legally invalid and non-est unless the legal representative waives the defect and submits to jurisdiction without raising objections.
Since the petitioner did not submit to jurisdiction and no fresh notice was served on him as the legal representative, the notice issued in the name of the deceased assessee was invalid and liable to be quashed.

Key Takeaways

Notice on Deceased Person Is Nullity: A statutory notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased individual is inherently null and void from inception (void ab initio).
Mandate to Serve Legal Representatives: Once the Revenue is aware of or accepts the legal representative on record, a proper notice under Section 148 must be issued directly to the legal representative under Section 159.
Jurisdictional Defect Is Fatal: Proceeding against a deceased person without valid service on the legal representative goes to the root of jurisdiction, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding non-est.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Prakashchandra Gamanlal Kantliwala

Income-tax Officer

A.S. Supehia and Ms. VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9160 of 2025

SEPTEMBER 7, 2026

Manish J. Shah for the Petitioner. Rutvij R. Patel for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.- Heard Mr.Manish J. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Rutvij R. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2025 at Annexure-C.

B) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking the respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of the Notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2025 at Annexure-C.

C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant the stay of further proceedings in pursuance of notice issued u/s.148 dated 29.03.2025 at Annexure-C.

D) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any further or other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of justice, and

E) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this application with costs against the respondent.”

3. At the outset, it is submitted that the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22 was issued by the respondent herein under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, “the Act”) to late Nilima Kantilal Surti, who expired on 12.05.2024 after obtaining prior approval of specified authority under Section 151 of the Act on 27.03.2025 and asked her to file return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner registered himself as legal heir on the income-tax portal by making a request on 05.05.2025, which was ultimately accepted by the income tax authority on 08.05.2025.

4. Mr.Manish J. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat) and submitted that the impugned notice having been issued to a dead person is non-est in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed on the aforesaid ground by setting aside the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025.

5. Mr.Rutvij R. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel has relied on the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that petitioner herein registered himself as legal heir of late Nilima Kantilal Surti on 05.05.2025, which was approved on 08.05.2025. The Department did not have knowledge of assessee’s death until for the first time upon receipt of the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the present petition whereby direction was issued restraining the respondents from passing of any final order in the assessment proceeding. Hence, this Court may not entertain the present petition.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, undisputedly the show-cause-notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2025 to deceased assessee i.e. Nilima Kantilal Surti, who expired on 12.05.2024. Though the petitioner herein registered himself as legal heir on income-tax portal by making request on 05.05.2025, which was duly accepted by the income tax authority on 08.05.2025, the notice dated 29.03.2025 is issued to a dead person.

6.1. It is pertinent to note that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to a dead person is invalid unless a legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objections. Though name of the legal representative i.e. petitioner herein is accepted by the respondent authority, as referred to hereinabove, on 08.05.2025, no notice is issued to the petitioner herein in his capacity as legal heir.

7. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision rendered in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja v. Income Tax Officer 420 ITR 226 (Gujarat), more particularly, paragraph no. 18 which reads thus:

“18. We are not impressed by the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Revenue that the writ-applicant having participated in the proceedings cannot turn around and submit that the proceedings cannot continue as the notice was issued to a dead person. This argument of the learned counsel needs to be considered in light of the materials on record. We take notice of the fact that in fact the writ-applicant cannot be said to have participated in the proceedings in any manner. All that the writ-applicant did was, she informed the Assessing Officer that the notice was issued in the name of her husband who was already dead and gone. In our opinion, such intimation to the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as participating in the proceedings. We could have appreciated this argument canvassed on behalf of the Revenue if the writ-applicant would have filed her return accordingly. If that would have been the position, we could have very well accepted the argument that having participated in the proceedings, such issue could not have been raised.”

8. Considering the aforesaid position of law and the facts of the present case, for reasons referred hereinabove, the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 is required to be quashed and set aside, the same having been issued to a dead person and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

9. The present petition is allowed. It is open for the respondent authority to reopen or re-initiate proceedings against the petitioner if permissible in accordance with provision of Section 159 of the Act.