Gowthaman S vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Case type
- WA
- Decided on
- 23-03-2026
<div> <b>2026:MHC:1173</b><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS<br /> DATED: 23.03.2026<br /> CORAM :<br /> THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,<br /> CHIEF JUSTICE<br /> AND<br /> THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN<br /> WA No.529 of 2026<br /> and CMP N o .5130 of 2026 <br /> Gowthaman S<br /> Legal heir of Late.K. Selvarasu, <br /> Kootampalli, Perur Post <br /> Kattumannarkoil Taluka<br /> Cuddalore - 608 707.<br /> Appellant(s)<br /> Vs<br /> 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2<br /> 1st Floor Cuddalore Income Tax Office,<br /> Soorappa Naicken Chavadi,<br /> Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu – 607002.<br /> 2. The Assessment Unit<br /> Income Tax Department Faceless<br /> Assessment, New Delhi.<br /> Respondent(s)<br /> PRAYER : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the <br /> order dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.No.39793 of 2025 and allow the writ <br /> appeal.<br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 1 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> For Appellant(s): Mr. Venkataraman Sundareswaran<br /> For Respondent(s):Ms.C.P.Priya<br /> Senior Standing Counsel<br /> for Income Tax Department<br /> JUDGMENT<br /> (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)<br /> Assailing the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned <br /> Single Judge in W.P.No.39793 of 2025, the unsuccessful writ <br /> petitioner has filed this writ appeal.<br /> 2. The appellant, by way of the writ petition, challenged the <br /> order dated 31.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the <br /> Income Tax Act, 1961; the Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025; <br /> and the notice of demand dated 17.02.2025 issued under Section <br /> 156 of the Act, mainly on the ground that the same have been <br /> passed and issued against a person, who died on 4.1.2024.<br /> 3. The learned Single Judge, vide the order impugned dated <br /> 27.10.2025, held that the mandate of Section 159(1) of the Act <br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 2 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> makes it clear that when a person dies, his legal representative is <br /> liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to <br /> pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as <br /> the deceased and, therefore, it is not open for the appellant to <br /> plead that the assessment proceedings were initiated after the <br /> death of the deceased on 04.1.2024, without notice to the appellant <br /> or other legal representatives, as there are no records to indicate <br /> that after the assessee died on 4.1.2024, the appellant took steps <br /> to inform the department about the death of the deceased <br /> assessee. The learned Single Judge, though rejected the challenge <br /> to the jurisdiction of the respondents to issue the proceedings <br /> impugned in the writ petition, quashed the same and remitted the <br /> matter to the first respondent to pass fresh order on merits after <br /> affording an opportunity to the appellant to explain his case.<br /> 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the <br /> notice issued after the death of the assessee, followed by orders, is <br /> non-est in eye of law. He further submitted that unless the <br /> proceedings are initiated on the legal heir under Section 159(2) of <br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 3 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> the Act within the period of limitation, all the consequential entire <br /> proceedings abates.<br /> 4.2. It is further submitted that the second respondent had <br /> dropped the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A of the <br /> Act vide order dated 2.8.2025 as the assessee had died, however, <br /> they have failed to exercise such diligence while issuing other <br /> proceedings and orders.<br /> 4.3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel <br /> for the appellant placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Madhya <br /> Pradesh High Court in <i>Meet Lalwani v. Income-tax Officer and </i><br /> 1<br /> <i>another</i> .<br /> 5. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the <br /> submissions made before the learned Single Judge and justified the <br /> order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge.<br /> 1 <i>(2025) 483 ITR 172 (MP)</i><br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 4 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> 6. In the case on hand, it is beyond any cavil that the <br /> impugned proceedings were drawn against a person who died on <br /> 4.1.2024.<br /> 7. Considering an identical issue, in <i>Meet Lalwani </i> (supra), a <br /> Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in which myself <br /> was a member, after referring to a series of judgments of various <br /> High Courts observed that the notice and all consequential <br /> proceedings issued to a dead person are null and void. The <br /> relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:<br /> <i>“12. It has been observed by the Delhi High Court in </i><br /> <i>the case of Savita Kapila v. Asst. CIT [(2020) 426 </i><br /> <i>ITR 502 (Delhi)] as under (page 512 of 426 ITR):</i><br /> <i>“… In the absence of a statutory provision it </i><br /> <i>is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal </i><br /> <i>representatives to intimate the factum of </i><br /> <i>death of an assessee to the Income-tax </i><br /> <i>Department…</i><br /> <i>Consequently, the legal heirs are under no </i><br /> <i>statutory obligation to intimate the death of </i><br /> <i>the assessee to the Revenue.”</i><br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 5 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> <i>13. The Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu </i><br /> <i>Veerappan v. ITO [(2018) 12 ITR-OL 95 (Mad); 2018 </i><br /> <i>SCC OnLine Mad 13593.] has observed as under </i><br /> <i>(page 100 of 12 ITR-OL):</i><br /> <i>“… Nothing has been placed before this court </i><br /> <i>by the Revenue to show that there is a </i><br /> <i>statutory obligation on the part of the legal </i><br /> <i>representatives of the deceased assessee to </i><br /> <i>immediately intimate the death of the </i><br /> <i>assessee to take steps to cancel the </i><br /> <i>Permanent Account Number registration.”</i><br /> <i>14. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of </i><br /> <i>Bombay</i> <i> </i> <i>in Sumit</i> <i> </i> <i>Balkrishna</i> <i> </i> <i>Gupta v. Asst. </i><br /> <i>CIT [(2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom)] wherein it has been </i><br /> <i>observed as under (page 295 of 414 ITR):</i><br /> <i>“7. The issue of a notice under section 148 of </i><br /> <i>the Act is a foundation for reopening of </i><br /> <i>assessment. The sine qua non for acquiring </i><br /> <i>jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that </i><br /> <i>such notice should be issued in the name of </i><br /> <i>the correct person. This requirement of </i><br /> <i>issuing notice to a correct person and not to </i><br /> <i>a dead person is not merely a procedural </i><br /> <i>requirement but is a condition precedent to </i><br /> <i>the impugned notice being valid in law. Thus, </i><br /> <i>a notice which has been issued in the name </i><br /> <i>of the dead person is also not protected </i><br /> <i>either by provisions of section 292B or </i><br /> <i>292BB of the Act. This is so as the </i><br /> <i>requirement of issuing a notice in the name </i><br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 6 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> <i>of correct person is the foundational </i><br /> <i>requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen </i><br /> <i>the assessment. This is evident from section </i><br /> <i>148 of the Act, which requires that before a </i><br /> <i>proceeding can be taken up for </i><br /> <i>reassessment, a notice must be served upon </i><br /> <i>the assessee. The assessee on whom the </i><br /> <i>notice must be sent must be a living person, </i><br /> <i>i.e., legal heir of the deceased assessee, for </i><br /> <i>the same to be responded. This in fact is the </i><br /> <i>intent and purpose of the Act. Therefore, </i><br /> <i>section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to </i><br /> <i>correct a foundational/substantial error as it </i><br /> <i>is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional </i><br /> <i>requirement.”</i><br /> <i>15. In view of the above and that various High </i><br /> <i>Courts have observed that the notice issued to a </i><br /> <i>dead person for reopening of assessment of a dead </i><br /> <i>person is null and void, this court holds that the </i><br /> <i>notice and all consequential proceedings arising </i><br /> <i>therefrom in the name of the deceased assessee are </i><br /> <i>not sustainable.” </i><br /> 8. We are in complete agreement with the submission made <br /> by learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid <br /> decision that the Department cannot issue notice and the <br /> consequential proceedings, impugned in the writ petition, to a dead <br /> person. That apart, it is also held therein that proceedings under <br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 7 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> Section 159 of the Act can be invoked only if the proceedings have <br /> already been initiated when the assessee was alive and continuation <br /> of proceedings against the legal heirs was permitted. In the case <br /> on hand, admittedly, the proceedings have been initiated after the <br /> demise of the assessee.<br /> In such view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed and the <br /> order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. As a <br /> consequence, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated <br /> 31.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, <br /> 1961; the Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025; and the notice of <br /> demand dated 17.2.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act are <br /> set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, <br /> interim application stands closed.<br /> (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)<br /> 23.03.2026<br /> Index : Yes<br /> Neutral Citation : Yes<br /> sasi<br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 8 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> To:<br /> 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2<br /> 1st Floor Cuddalore Income Tax Office,<br /> Soorappa Naicken Chavadi,<br /> Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu – 607002.<br /> 2. The Assessment Unit<br /> Income Tax Department Faceless<br /> Assessment, New Delhi.<br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 9 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )<br /><br /> <i>W.A.No.529 of 2026</i><br /> THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE<br /> AND<br /> G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.<br /> (sasi)<br /> WA No.529 of 2026<br /> <br /> 23.03.2026<br /> <i>______________</i><br /> <i>Page 10 of 10</i><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 07:26:41 pm )</div>