The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a deceased individual is ‘Null and Void’. Nevertheless, the court has granted the respondent the freedom to the department to recommence proceedings against the petitioner or legal heir of the deceased, if deemed necessary.
The petitioner, an elderly widow and legal heir of the late Kamal Kumar Saxena, sought to quash the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2015-16 initiated against her deceased husband.
Contending that the entire reassessment process, commencing with the notice under Section 148A(b) and extending to subsequent notices under Section 148, was instigated against a deceased individual, the petitioner asserted that this rendered the proceedings legally defective and void ab initio. In light of the petitioner’s advanced age and dependence on personal savings, she approached the court seeking redress.
A fundamental condition for issuing a notice under Section 148 is that it must be directed to a living person and cannot be issued to a deceased individual, submitted Adv. Arun Dwivendi, the counsel appeared for the petitioner.
Highlighting the petitioner’s timely submission of the deceased’s death certificate, the counsel emphasised the unenforceability of a notice issued in the name of a deceased person. Legal precedents, including recent judgments like Smt. Madhuben Kantilal Patel vs. Union of India [ 2023 ] and Krishnaawtar Kabra vs. Income Tax Officer [ 2022 ], were cited to support the petitioner’s case.
Yet, the counsel for the respondents, citing various judgments from the Supreme Court and High Court, argued that filing a petition against the order under Section 148A(d)/Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the commencement of reassessment proceedings is not sustainable. The counsel contended that all objections should be raised before the Assessing Officer since it does not represent a conclusive adjudication, and there is no subsequent statutory remedy available against the adjudication order.
The bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari and Justice Devanaryan Mishra decided that the notice issued in the name of the deceased, Kamal Kumar Saxena, is unenforceable in the eyes of the law.
“This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not a merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law”. This was observed by the Mumbai HC in the case of Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Asstt. CIT, 2019.
Citing these recent judgments and consistent legal opinions, the court held that the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act is null and void, being without jurisdiction. In addition, it quashed the impugned notice and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16, declaring all actions in furtherance as prohibited. This ruling reinforces the principle that reopening assessments for deceased individuals is legally unsustainable and the importance of adhering to due legal processes.
The respondents including CBDT, PCIT, Income Tax Officer and NFAC were represented by Adv. Veena Mandlik.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
