Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shri Satish Mehta, passed away on 10.11.2016. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings and issued notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) and passed an assessment order in the name of the deceased assessee. The legal heir, Shri Kapil Mehta, contended that these proceedings were invalid as they were initiated against a dead person.
Held
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without impleading the legal representative are void ab initio. Issuing notices to a dead person is illegal and invalid, and therefore, no valid jurisdiction can be assumed. Consequently, the assessment order is quashed.
Key Issues
Whether assessment proceedings and order framed in the name of a deceased person, without involving the legal heir, are valid and legal.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 159, 2(7), 148, 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 06.08.2024 for A.Y 2017-18.
The assessee has raised six substantive grounds of appeal. Vide Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction and further erred in framing assessment on a dead person.
Vide the other grounds, the assessee has challenged the disallowances made in the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that Shri Satish Mehta died on 10.11.2016. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that assessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s143(2) dated 07.09.2018 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] in the name of dead assessee, Satish Mehta. Even the notice u/s.142(1)
Dtd.05.08.2019 is issued in the name of dead assessee i.e. Satish Mehta.
Further the assessment order dated 13.12.2019 is also in the income of Shri Satish Mehta. The ld AR argued that as the notices were issued in the name of dead assessee i.e. to "Satish Mehta" and hence notice issued in the name of dead person is non est/illegal notice. No legal valid jurisdiction can be assumed on the basis of notice u/s143(2) in the name of dead person. Therefore, the initiation of assessment proceedings
Page 2 of 9 being non est and illegal, the whole assessment proceedings including assessment order are illegal and needs to be quashed.
The ld AR further argued that the assessment order has also been addressed to "To, Satish Mehta" and hence assessment order has also been framed in the name of dead person by treating him as the assessee.
It is the say of the ld AR that in the case of dead person, the assessee is only the legal representative and not the dead person, as is evident from section 159 of the Act which says that in case of deceased, the legal representative shall be the assessee. The ld AR submitted that here the legal representative is his son Sh. Kapil Mehta, hence the assessee should be "Kapil Mehta" and not Late Satish Mehta.Hence, Sh. Kapil Mehta is the legal representative, he is liable to pay tax relating to Lt. Satish Mehta, therefore, as per definition of assessee in Sec.2(7) Sh. Kapil Mehta is to be deemed as an assessee. In the instant case, the A.O. has treated deceased Satish Mehta as an assessee and framed assessment treating Satish Mehta as an assessee while in this case only Sh. Kapil Mehta is the deemed assessee U/s.2(7) of the Act. Thus, complete asstt. is without jurisdiction and consequential asstt. order is liable to be quashed. The ld. AR once again stated that the assessment has been framed in the name of a non-est person and the CIT(A) has grossly erred in not annulling the assessment order. The ld. AR drew our attention to various
Page 3 of 9 judicial decisions wherein the Hon'ble High Courts have held that assessment framed on a non-existent person is void ab initio.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The ld DR argued that the Department was not informed of the death of the assessee and therefore the notices were issued in the name of the deceased person.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee died on 10.11.2016. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) as well as the assessment order was framed on late Satish Mehta. The provision of section 159 of the Act provides for assessment proceedings of deceased person to be made against the legal representative who would be the deemed assessee.
In the instant case, we find that the legal representative of late Satish Mehta is his son Sh. Kapil Mehta. The deemed assessee u/s 159(3) read with section 2(7) would therefore be "Kapil Mehta" and not Late Satish Mehta who would be liable to pay tax relating to Lt. Satish Mehta.
In the instant case, the A.O. has treated deceased Satish Mehta as an Page 4 of 9 assessee and issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) to late Satish Mehta and also framed assessment u/s 143(3) treating Satish Mehta as an assessee while in this case only Sh. Kapil Mehta is the deemed assessee U/s.2(7) of the Act.
We find that the issue of notices being issued to dead person and assessment being made on dead person have been dealt with several courts. In the case of DCIT v. Pranav Gupta [2025] 176 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi - Trib.) -Dtd. 20.06.25, the Tribunal held as under:
Sec. 148, r.w.s. 159, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping asstt. - Issue of notice for (Validity of) A.Y.2009-10 - Original assessee filed return of income which was accepted - Subsequently, a notice U/s.148 was issued in name of original assessee who had already died - Legal heir of original assessee objected to notice being issued in name of deceased - Whether notice issued in name of a dead person is not a valid notice - Held, yes - Whether for initiating proceedings in respect of a deceased person, legal heirs need to be identified and notices are required to be served upon such legal heirs being deemed assessees, in names and in that capacity as legal heirs of deceased and those particular notices are required to be served within statutory time limit prescribed - Held, yes - Whether since admittedly, no notice u/s.148 was served upon original assessee when he was alive or on deemed assessee, entire proceedings were vitiated and void ab initio and, therefore, liable to be quashed - Held, yes [Para 17] [In favour of assessee)
It was similarly held by the hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Padmshibhai Padshala Vs ITO -[2024] 168 taxmann.com 513 (Gujarat) which held as under:
"Sec.69A, r.w.s.148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Reassessment) Unexplained Moneys Α.Υ.2012-13 A.O. issued a notice U/s.148 in name of a dead person on basis of information that deceased had deposited certain cash in his bank account and earned interest income during relevant asstt. year and he did not file return of income disclosing cash deposited in bank A/c which had remained unexplained - A.O. thereafter passed assessment order and also levied penalty U/s.271F - Whether since notice issued U/s.148 against a dead person is defective, impugned notice issued U/s.148 and consequential asstt. order as well as penalty order deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 14 & 17] [In favour of assessee]"
On the issue that the legal representative/legal heirs were required to inform the Department as to the status of the deceased, the hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Savita Kapila v. ACIT - [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) has held as under:
"Sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for (Service of notice) - A.Y.2012-13 - An information was received by A.O. that assessee had deposited certain amount in his bank account source of which was not explained A.O. thus issued a notice to asseessee under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Petitioner i.e. legal representative of assessee filed instant petition challenging validity of said notice by contending that it was issued subsequent to death of assessee and, thus, statutory requirement of service of notice had not been fulfilled - Whether in Page 6 of 9 absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum of death of assessee to department - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, question as to whether PAN record was updated or not or whether department was made aware by legal representatives or not is irrelevant - Held, yes - Whether in view of aforesaid legal position and, having regard to fact that impugned notice could not have been served upon assessee, same deserved to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 32, 41 and 42] [In favour of assessee)"
On a thoughtful consideration of the facts of the case in hand and in the light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment has been framed on a non-existing person. We are therefore of the opinion that the assessment, having been framed in the name of a non-est person, the same is without jurisdiction and consequential assessment order is invalid and liable to be quashed as void ab initio. We accordingly quash the assessment order as ab-initio-void. The ground 1 and 2 of the assessee is allowed.
Since the assessment order has been held to be a nullity, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the grounds raised on merits is not adjudicated upon.
Page 7 of 9 is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2025.