LAXMI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR NARENDRA MANN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4745/2024HC DelhiDLHC01017163202422 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is fundamental to the Assessing Officer's (AO) jurisdiction to commence assessment proceedings. The Court found that the notices issued in the name of the deceased assessee were invalid. It was not disputed that notices cannot be issued to a deceased assessee, nor can an assessment order be passed in their name. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the petitioner's knowledge of the proceedings via email cured the defect, stating that the issue was not about ignorance but about the legal impossibility of instituting proceedings against a deceased person in their own name. Since the petitioner had been registered as the legal representative, the AO could have initiated proceedings against the petitioner in a representative capacity, but failed to do so. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and notices, holding that the proceedings commenced pursuant to the invalid notice must fail. The Court clarified that this would not preclude the AO from initiating fresh proceedings if otherwise permissible in law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narendra Mann, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 30, 2022, and a consequential demand notice, along with other notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax. The challenge was based on the ground that these notices and the assessment order were issued in the name of his mother, Laxmi Devi, who had passed away on March 8, 2020. The petitioner's mother had filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner was accepted as the legal heir/representative by the department on February 27, 2021, and had provided necessary documentation. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on March 31, 2021, in the name of the deceased assessee, followed by notices under Section 142(1) and the impugned assessment order, all in the name of the deceased.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated March 30, 2022, are valid when they were issued in the name of a deceased assessee, despite the petitioner being registered as the legal heir. The Assessee (petitioner) contended that the notices and assessment order were fundamentally flawed as they were issued in the name of a deceased person, rendering the proceedings void. The Assessee argued that once the department accepted the petitioner as the legal representative, proceedings should have been initiated against him in that capacity. The Revenue contended that since the notices were sent to the correct e-mail ID of the petitioner, the petitioner could not claim ignorance of the assessment proceedings. The Revenue implied that the procedural defect of issuing notices in the deceased's name should be overlooked due to the petitioner's knowledge of the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 4745/2024 Page 1 of 3

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 22.05.2025

+ W.P.(C) 4745/2024 & CM APPL. 19459/2024 LAXMI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR NARENDRA MANN

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms. Sakshi Sehrawal, JSC, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSC and Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an assessment order dated 30.03.2022 [the impugned assessment order] and the consequential demand notice of the same date, issued pursuant to the impugned assessment order. The petitioner also impugns other notices issued by the Assessing Officer [AO]. The petitioner’s challenge rests on the ground that the notices were issued in the name of his mother, who had expired prior to the issuance of the said notices and the impugned assessment order was also framed in the name of the deceased Assessee. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:27.05.2025 16:08:48 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 4745/2024 Page 2 of 3

2.

The petitioner’s mother [Assessee] had filed the return of income for Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15 on 31.07.2014. It is stated that the Assessee expired on 08.03.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to be recorded as the legal heir / representative. The petitioner’s application to that effect was accepted by the department on 27.02.2021. The petitioner also uploaded the PAN details of the deceased Assessee, his own PAN, the death certificate of the Assessee, and a letter issued by the Indian Bank certifying the petitioner as the nominee of the deceased Assessee. 3. On 31.03.2021, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of the deceased Assessee, seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15. Subsequently, notices dated 25.01.2022 and 21.02.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act were also issued in the name of the deceased Assessee. These proceedings culminated in the impugned assessment order dated 30.03.2022, which too was passed in the name of the deceased Assessee. It is not disputed that the notices cannot be issued to a deceased Assessee, nor can an assessment order be passed in their name. 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that since the notices were sent to the correct e-mail ID of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of the assessment proceedings. 5. In our view, the said contention misses the point, that is, no proceedings can be instituted against a deceased Assessee in their name. In this case, there is no cavil that the petitioner’s name had already been registered as the legal representative of the Assessee and therefore, the AO was not precluded from initiating proceedings against the petitioner in a Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:27.05.2025 16:08:48 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 4745/2024 Page 3 of 3

representative capacity. However, it is clear that no such proceedings were issued. 6. We are unable to accept that the defect in the present case can be overlooked, as the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is at the root of the jurisdiction of an AO to commence proceedings. Absent any such valid notice, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. Since, in the present case, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid as it was issued in the name of the deceased Assessee, the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto must fail. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned assessment order and the impugned notices are set aside. 8. We, however, clarify that this shall not preclude the AO from initiating fresh proceedings, if otherwise permissible in law.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 22, 2025/sms

Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:27.05.2025 16:08:48 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →