Income tax proceedings initiated against a deceased person are null and void and lack jurisdiction.

The appellant is the legal heir of K. Selvarasu, who passed away on 04.01.2024

Following the death, the Income Tax Department issued an order under Section 148A(d) on 31.03.2024, an Assessment Order on 17.02.2025, and a demand notice under Section 156 on the same date

Notably, the Department had previously dropped penalty proceedings under Section 270A on 02.08.2025 specifically because the assessee had died

The appellant challenged these orders via a writ petition. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders but remitted the matter for fresh consideration, holding that under Section 159(1), the legal representative is liable and had failed to inform the department of the death

The appellant filed this writ appeal, contending that proceedings initiated against a dead person are non-est in law

The Court primarily applied Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, distinguishing between the liability of legal representatives and the jurisdictional requirement for initiating proceedings

It relied on the principle that the issuance of a notice to the correct (living) person is a foundational condition precedent for acquiring jurisdiction, as established in Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asst. CIT

Furthermore, the Court applied the precedent from Meet Lalwani v. Income-tax Officer, which holds that notices and consequential proceedings against a deceased person are null and void

The Court also noted that legal heirs have no statutory obligation to intimate the death of an assessee to the Revenue, as held in Savita Kapila v. Asst. CIT and Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO

The Court observed that it was undisputed that the impugned proceedings were initiated on 31.03.2024, nearly three months after the assessee’s death on 04.01.2024

The Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge's reliance on Section 159(1) to justify the remittal, clarifying that Section 159 can only be invoked to continue proceedings that were already pending while the assessee was alive

Since the notice was issued to a dead person, it constituted a jurisdictional defect rather than a procedural irregularity

The Court emphasized that Section 292B cannot validate such a foundational error

The Court highlighted the Department's inconsistency, as they had dropped penalty proceedings due to the death but continued with the assessment

It held that the order under Section 148A(d), the Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025, and the notice of demand under Section 156 are null and void as they were issued against a deceased person

The Court concluded that proceedings under Section 159 of the Act are only permissible if they were initiated while the assessee was alive

All impugned orders and notices were quashed