Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee passed away before the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment. The reassessment proceedings were finalized in the name of the deceased assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to a deceased person is a substantive illegality and is invalid in the eyes of law. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings are vitiated.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the name of a deceased person are valid.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
O R D E R
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.02.2024 arising out of the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Circle 43(1), New Delhi under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2012-13.
First we take up the legal ground no. 3 raised by the assessee, which reads as under:
“That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as order passed by AO is erroneous by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2019 in the name of deceased person Shri Champat Singh. As the proceedings u/s 148 of IT Act were initiated on deceased. Hence notice issued u/s 148 is invalid and the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is void ab initio.”
In the instant case the assessee died on 16.04.2018 and the order of assessment was passed on 09.12.2019. Notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment in the case of the assessee was issued on 26.03.2019, appearing at page 1 of the paper book filed before us by the assessee. When the said notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.03.2019 by and under the signatures of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad the assessee had already left for his heavenly abode. However, the assessment was finalized in the name of the assessee on 09.12.2019. No notice could have been issued in the name of deceased assessee for reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act neither reassessment proceedings could be proceeded with on the basis of such invalid notice. Thus, the notice is not valid in the eyes of law and the proceeding of reassessment initiated is found to be bad ab initio as the case made out by the assessee’s counsel is found to be acceptable.
We have further considered the following judgment passed by different authorities as relied upon and inspired by the ratio laid down therein in favour of the assessee:
- Meenu Gupta v. ACIT [2024] 301 taxman 421 (Delhi) [29.09.2024]; - Pradeep Jain v. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi); - Savita Kapila v. ACIT 273 Taxman 148 (Delhi) [16.07.2020]; - DCIT vs. Pranav Gupta [2025] 176 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi-Trib.) [20.06.2025]; - Ishwar Chand Aggarwal v. ITO [ITA No. 2844/Del/2024].
4. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in our considered opinion, the notice for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act issued to a dead person and/or non-existent entity is a case of substantive illegality and is invalid in the eyes of law and therefore the entire proceeding is found to be vitiated. Thus, with the above observation we quash the reopening proceedings initiated against the assessee.
In view of above, all other grounds raised in the instant appeal need not to be adjudicated having rendered academic interest only.
Order pronounced in open court on 29.10.2025.