Assessment notice issued in the name of a deceased person is legally unsustainable and void.

The petitioner is the son and legal heir of late Shri Ashokkumar Harakhchand Soni, who died on 15.03.2024.

The petitioner registered himself as the legal heir on the Income Tax portal on 12.07.2024 and filed the deceased's Return of Income for AY 2024-25 in that capacity.

Despite the petitioner previously informing the Assessing Officer of the death during AY 2023-24 proceedings, the department issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.06.2025, in the name of the deceased for AY 2024-25.

Even after a subsequent reply on 12.07.2025 reiterating the death, the department issued another notice under Section 142(1) in the name of the deceased.

Whether a scrutiny assessment notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased assessee is legally sustainable when the department was informed of the death.

The court applied the settled legal principle that a notice issued against a dead person is a nullity and void ab initio.

It specifically relied on the precedent set in *Krishnaawtar Kabra L/h of Jagannath Rampal Kabra v. Income Tax Officer* [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat), which establishes that assessment proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a deceased individual.

The court also operated under the procedural framework of Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court found it to be an uncontroverted "established fact" that the impugned notice for AY 2024-25 was issued to a dead person.

The Court noted that the petitioner had taken all necessary steps to update the department, including registering as a legal heir on the e-filing portal and filing verified returns in that capacity.

Despite clear intimations via portal replies and emails during current and prior assessment years, the Revenue failed to address the notices to the legal heir.

The Revenue’s counsel admitted they could not contest the fact that the notice was issued to a deceased person.

Consequently, the court reasoned that the initiation of proceedings against a non-existent person lacked jurisdiction.

The Court held that the notice was invalid as it was passed against a deceased person.

However, the court reserved liberty for the Revenue to reopen or re-initiate assessment proceedings against the legal heir if permissible under the law.