A reassessment notice issued to a deceased assessee is invalid unless the legal representative submits to jurisdiction.

The Income Tax Department issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 29 March 2025, for Assessment Year 2021–22 in the name of Nilima Kantilal Surti, who had died on 12 May 2024.

The notice was issued after approval under Section 151 was granted on 27 March 2025. The petitioner, claiming to be her legal heir, registered himself on the income-tax portal on 5 May 2025, and the registration was accepted on 8 May 2025. However, no fresh notice under Section 148 was issued to him in his capacity as legal representative.

The petitioner challenged the notice as being issued to a dead person. The Revenue contended that it had no knowledge of the assessee’s death until the High Court’s interim order dated 10 July 2025.

Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act to a person who had already died is legally valid?

Whether the subsequent registration and acceptance of the petitioner as the deceased assessee’s legal heir validated the notice or permitted continuation of the reassessment proceedings?

Whether the Revenue could nevertheless initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with Section 159 of the Act?

The Court applied Sections 148 and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning reassessment notices and the prior approval required for issuing such notices, and Section 159, which governs the liability and assessment of a deceased assessee through the legal representative.

The Court relied on Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Income Tax Officer, (2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat) for the principle that a reassessment notice issued to a dead person is non-est in law.

It also relied on Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja v. Income Tax Officer, [2020] 117 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat), holding that merely informing the Assessing Officer about the assessee’s death does not amount to participation in reassessment proceedings; waiver or submission to jurisdiction cannot be inferred unless the legal representative meaningfully participates, such as by filing a return.

The Court found it undisputed that Nilima Kantilal Surti had died before the Section 148 notice was issued. Consequently, the notice dated 29 March 2025 was addressed to a person who had no legal existence on the date of issuance and was therefore invalid.

Although the petitioner was subsequently accepted as the legal heir on the income-tax portal, that acceptance did not cure the defect because no notice was issued to him in his capacity as legal representative.

The Court rejected the Revenue’s objection based on the petitioner’s registration as legal heir, applying Urmilaben, since there was no material showing that the petitioner had filed a return or otherwise submitted to the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction. The original notice could not therefore be sustained, though the Department remained free to commence proceedings afresh if permitted under Section 159.

The notice was accordingly quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed.

The Court clarified that the Revenue could reopen or re-initiate proceedings against the petitioner, if otherwise permissible, in accordance with Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.