Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vikram Bhatnagar, acting as the legal representative of Late Shri Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar, challenged the validity of assessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department for Assessment Year 2018–19.

After the death of the assessee on 10th March 2018, the petitioner duly registered himself as a legal representative and filed the Income Tax Return on behalf of the deceased. Despite being informed of the death and the legal representation, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) in the name of the deceased assessee.

Subsequently, assessment proceedings were completed, and an assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed along with notices under Sections 156 and 270A, all in the name of the deceased person without properly impleading all legal heirs.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person is valid in law.
  2. Whether assessment proceedings conducted against a dead person are sustainable.
  3. Whether subsequent corrections (adding legal heir’s name) can cure a jurisdictional defect.
  4. Applicability of Section 159 of the Income Tax Act in such circumstances.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice under Section 143(2) was issued in the name of a deceased assessee, rendering it void ab initio.
  • The Assessing Officer failed to bring all legal heirs on record.
  • Subsequent notices mentioning “through legal heir” cannot cure the initial jurisdictional defect.
  • Assessment for the entire financial year was incorrect as the assessee had expired before year-end.
  • The entire proceedings lacked jurisdiction and were illegal.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue fairly conceded that the issue is covered by binding judicial precedent.
  • It was admitted that the notice and assessment order were issued in the name of the deceased assessee.
  • Reliance was placed on established case law including Savita Kapila vs ACIT.

Court Findings / Order

  • A notice issued against a deceased person is void and without jurisdiction.
  • Issuance of a valid notice is a condition precedent for initiating assessment proceedings.
  • The defect is not procedural but jurisdictional, and cannot be cured by subsequent amendments.
  • Section 159 applies only when proceedings were initiated during the lifetime of the assessee, which was not the case here.

Final Order:

  • The notice under Section 143(2) and the assessment order under Section 143(3), along with consequential notices under Sections 156 and 270A, were quashed and set aside.
  • The writ petition was allowed.
  • Liberty was granted to the Revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Important Clarification by Court

  • There is no statutory obligation on legal heirs to inform the department about the death of the assessee.
  • Proceedings initiated against a dead person are nullity in law.
  • Jurisdiction cannot be assumed without issuing notice to a valid person.
  • Subsequent participation or correction does not validate invalid initiation.

Sections Involved

  • Section 143(2) – Scrutiny Notice
  • Section 143(3) – Assessment Order
  • Section 156 – Notice of Demand
  • Section 270A – Penalty Proceedings
  • Section 159 – Liability of Legal Representatives
  • Section 148 (referred in precedent cases)
  • Section 149 – Limitation

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/58909112022CW122152021_212146.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.