Reassessment in Name of Deceased Person Is Void Even If Death Not Intimated: ITAT Mumbai Quashes Entire Proceedings
In an important ruling on jurisdictional validity of reassessment proceedings, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that reassessment initiated in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio, even where the department was not informed about the death beforehand.
In Rakesh Jain (Legal Heir of Late Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain) (ITA Nos. 7674–7677/Mum/2025, AY 2013-14), the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed under Sections 147 read with 144 and 144B, along with all consequential penalties, holding that proceedings initiated against a dead person suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The decision reinforces that notices must be issued to a legally existing person capable of responding, and failure to do so strikes at the root of the proceedings.
Facts of the Case
The department initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 in the name of the original assessee, who had already passed away.
The proceedings culminated in:
•Reassessment order under Sections 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B
• Penalties under Sections 271F, 272A(1)(d) and 271(1)(b)
The legal heir challenged the proceedings, contending that once the assessee had died, the notice itself was invalid and the entire reassessment lacked jurisdiction.
The department argued that the death had not been intimated earlier and therefore the proceedings should not be treated as void.
Issue Before the Tribunal
The key question examined was:
Can reassessment proceedings survive if notice is issued in the name of a deceased person merely because the department had no prior knowledge of the death?
The Tribunal answered this firmly in the negative.
Tribunal’s Findings
The ITAT held that the defect was not procedural but jurisdictional.
The Bench observed:
• Notices must be issued to a person capable of responding
• A deceased person cannot participate in proceedings
• Jurisdiction must exist at the time of issuing notice
• Lack of knowledge of death does not cure the defect
• Proceedings must be initiated against legal heirs if the assessee is deceased
Since the reassessment notice itself was invalid, the entire proceedings automatically became void.
Section 292B Cannot Cure This Defect
The Tribunal specifically addressed whether Section 292B could save the proceedings.
It held that Section 292B can cure technical mistakes such as clerical errors or minor procedural defects, but it cannot validate proceedings initiated against a non-existent person.
Issuing notice to a deceased person is not a curable irregularity — it goes to the root of jurisdiction.
Therefore, neither the reassessment order nor the consequential penalties could survive.
Important Legal Principle Emerging
This ruling reinforces a consistent judicial principle:
Proceedings against a dead person are null in law from inception.
Participation by legal heirs later does not validate the original notice.
Department’s lack of knowledge of death is irrelevant.
Fresh proceedings must be initiated in the name of legal heirs.
Jurisdiction cannot be created by procedural arguments.
This principle has been repeatedly upheld across reassessment, penalty, and recovery proceedings.
Why This Ruling Matters in Practice
Such cases are increasingly common because the department often relies on automated systems while issuing notices.
This decision highlights that:
•PAN records may not always reflect death
• Notices must still be legally valid at issuance stage
• Legal heirs should challenge such notices immediately
• Jurisdictional defects can nullify the entire case without entering merits
For litigation strategy, this often becomes a strong threshold ground.
Practical Guidance for Taxpayers and Professionals
This ruling suggests some important steps:
• Inform the department about death of taxpayer wherever possible
• If notice is received in name of deceased, challenge jurisdiction immediately
• File objection in writing before AO
• Raise ground specifically before appellate authorities
• Maintain proof of death and succession documents
Early objection can prevent unnecessary litigation on merits.
Conclusion
The ITAT Mumbai decision confirms that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained if initiated in the name of a deceased person, irrespective of whether the department knew about the death.
Jurisdiction must exist at the very beginning of proceedings. If the notice itself is invalid, the entire assessment collapses along with consequential penalties.
In tax law, procedural legality is the foundation — and a proceeding against a non-existent person cannot stand in law.
The copy of the order is as under:
1770629079-mkqWK7-1-TO
