{"id":1643,"date":"2026-09-09T19:51:54","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T15:21:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/?p=1643"},"modified":"2026-09-09T19:51:57","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T15:21:57","slug":"income-tax-notice-to-deceased-person","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/income-tax-notice-to-deceased-person\/","title":{"rendered":"Income Tax Notice to Deceased Person Is Void: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Income Tax Notice to Deceased Person &#8211; <strong>Can the Income Tax Department reopen an assessment by issuing a notice in the name of a taxpayer who has already died and later substitute the legal heir?<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court has answered this important question in favour of the taxpayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In&nbsp;<strong>Rajkumar Harlalka (Legal Heir of Late Balkrishna Sohanlal Harlalka) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai &amp; Ors., Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2026<\/strong>, decided on&nbsp;<strong>29 August 2026<\/strong>, the Court held that an&nbsp;<strong>Income Tax Notice to Deceased Person<\/strong>&nbsp;initiating reassessment proceedings suffers from a foundational jurisdictional defect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A proceeding which is invalid at its inception cannot subsequently be validated merely by bringing the legal representative on record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling is particularly important for legal heirs and taxpayers dealing with&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/tax-litigation.html\">Section 148\/148A reassessment proceedings<\/a>, because the Court has clarified that&nbsp;<strong>Section 159 does not permit the Department to first initiate reassessment against a dead person and then cure the defect by substituting the legal heir.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Case at a Glance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Case:<\/strong>&nbsp;Rajkumar Harlalka (Legal Heir of Late Balkrishna Sohanlal Harlalka) v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai &amp; Ors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Court:<\/strong>&nbsp;Bombay High Court<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Writ Petition:<\/strong>&nbsp;No. 3461 of 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Date of Judgment:<\/strong>&nbsp;29 August 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Assessment Year:<\/strong>&nbsp;AY 2021-22<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Relevant Provisions:<\/strong>&nbsp;Sections 148, 148A and 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Issue:<\/strong>&nbsp;Validity of reassessment initiated by issuing the foundational notice in the name of an assessee who had already died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Decision:<\/strong>&nbsp;Reassessment proceedings quashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Happened in This Case?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Late Shri Balkrishna Sohanlal Harlalka died on&nbsp;<strong>4 April 2023<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Soon thereafter, his son and legal heir applied for registration as the legal representative on the Income Tax e-Filing Portal. The Department approved his registration on&nbsp;<strong>4 May 2023<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, the Income Tax Department had official knowledge of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the death of the assessee; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the identity of his legal representative.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite this, the Department subsequently issued a summons under&nbsp;<strong>Section 131(1A)<\/strong>&nbsp;and thereafter, on&nbsp;<strong>31 March 2025<\/strong>, issued a show-cause notice under&nbsp;<strong>Section 148A(1)<\/strong>&nbsp;in the name of the deceased assessee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This was nearly two years after the Department had recognised the legal heir on its own e-Filing Portal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Legal Heir Raised the Jurisdictional Objection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal heir responded to the Section 148A notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, instead of merely responding to the allegations on merits, he specifically raised a preliminary objection that the entire proceeding was&nbsp;<strong>void ab initio<\/strong>, because the foundational notice had been issued to a person who was no longer alive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite this objection, the Assessing Officer proceeded further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On&nbsp;<strong>29 June 2025<\/strong>, an order under Section 148A(3) was passed and a consequential notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of the legal heir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This gave rise to the central question before the Bombay High Court:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Can reassessment proceedings wrongly initiated against a deceased person become valid merely because the Department subsequently brings the legal heir on record?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court held:&nbsp;<strong>No.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Revenue&#8217;s Argument: Section 159 Permits Proceedings Against Legal Heir<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Income Tax Department principally relied upon&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.incometaxindia.gov.in\/w\/section-159-29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 159 deals with the tax liability and assessment of a deceased person&#8217;s income through his legal representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Broadly, Section 159(2) provides two different situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where proceedings had already been validly initiated against the assessee&nbsp;<strong>before his death<\/strong>, they may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which they stood on the date of death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Further, proceedings which could have been taken against the deceased, had he survived, may be taken against his legal representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Revenue therefore argued that even though the initial show-cause notice had inadvertently been issued in the name of the deceased assessee, the defect stood cured once the proceedings were subsequently continued against the legal heir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Department also argued that the legal heir had actually responded to the notice and had therefore received an effective opportunity of hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court rejected these arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Bombay High Court: Valid Notice Is a Foundational Jurisdictional Requirement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court held that issuance and service of a valid show-cause notice upon the legally correct person is a&nbsp;<strong>foundational requirement for assumption of jurisdiction in reassessment proceedings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The statutory opportunity contemplated under Section 148A(1) must necessarily be provided to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the living assessee; or<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>where the assessee has already died, his legal representative.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A notice addressed to a person who was already dead when the notice was issued cannot satisfy this statutory requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, the defect was not regarded as a minor technical error or procedural irregularity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It went to the&nbsp;<strong>root of the Assessing Officer&#8217;s jurisdiction<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Put simply:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">No valid foundational notice = no valid reassessment based upon that notice.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This principle becomes particularly important while examining the validity of a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/tax-litigation.html\">Section 148 notice and reassessment proceeding<\/a>, because jurisdiction, limitation, sanction and the identity of the person to whom the notice is issued can determine the legality of the entire proceeding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Section 159 Cannot Cure a Notice Issued to a Dead Person<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is perhaps the most important part of the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.incometaxindia.gov.in\/w\/section-159-29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 159<\/a>&nbsp;certainly enables the Income Tax Department to assess or reassess income relating to a deceased taxpayer through his legal representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But that does&nbsp;<strong>not<\/strong>&nbsp;mean that the Department can first initiate proceedings against a person who is already dead and subsequently replace that person with the legal heir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 159(2)(b) permits proceedings which could have been taken against the deceased, had he survived, to be taken&nbsp;<strong>against the legal representative<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, where the assessee has died before initiation of reassessment, the Department must initiate the proceedings against the legally appropriate representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The provision does not authorise an invalid proceeding against a non-existent person to be retrospectively repaired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Department Already Knew That the Assessee Had Died<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The facts of this case made the Revenue&#8217;s position particularly difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The assessee died on&nbsp;<strong>4 April 2023<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Department approved the petitioner&#8217;s registration as legal heir on the e-Filing Portal on&nbsp;<strong>4 May 2023<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yet, the Section 148A(1) show-cause notice was issued in the deceased assessee&#8217;s name on&nbsp;<strong>31 March 2025<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, this was not even a situation where the Department could reasonably contend that it was unaware of the assessee&#8217;s death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Department&#8217;s own records reflected the death and the recognised legal representative almost two years before the impugned reassessment notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court therefore found no justification for initiation of the proceedings in the name of the deceased person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Does Participation by the Legal Heir Cure the Defect?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>No.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Revenue argued that the legal heir had responded to the notice and therefore the proceedings should not be invalidated merely because of the name in which the original notice was issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court rejected this contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal heir had specifically raised the jurisdictional objection at the outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, his participation could not be regarded as waiver or unconditional acceptance of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">More fundamentally, participation by an assessee or legal representative cannot itself create jurisdiction where jurisdiction did not legally exist in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The subsequent Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice issued in the name of the legal heir therefore could not revive a proceeding which was already invalid at its inception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Did the Bombay High Court Quash?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court consequently quashed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the show-cause notice dated\u00a0<strong>31 March 2025<\/strong>\u00a0issued under Section 148A(1);<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the order dated\u00a0<strong>29 June 2025<\/strong>\u00a0passed under Section 148A(3);<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the consequential notice dated\u00a0<strong>29 June 2025<\/strong>\u00a0issued under Section 148; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the consequential reassessment proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, there is an important qualification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Fresh Proceedings Against Legal Heir May Still Be Possible<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court clarified that its judgment would not prevent the Income Tax Department from initiating&nbsp;<strong>fresh proceedings against the legal representative<\/strong>, provided such proceedings are otherwise permissible under law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, the decision should&nbsp;<strong>not<\/strong>&nbsp;be understood to mean that the death of an assessee gives immunity from assessment or reassessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principle is narrower but extremely important:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>If reassessment is initiated after the assessee&#8217;s death, the Department must initiate it against the legally correct person and comply with all jurisdictional and limitation requirements.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For taxpayers already facing reopening, the notice should therefore be examined not merely on merits but also for jurisdiction, limitation, sanction and procedural validity. Professional&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/tax-litigation.html\">income tax reassessment and tax litigation representation<\/a>&nbsp;may be particularly relevant where these jurisdictional issues arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Section 159: What Happens When an Assessee Dies?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The distinction under Section 159 is important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Situation 1: Proceedings Started Before Death<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where valid proceedings were already taken against the assessee before his death, Section 159(2)(a) permits them to continue against the legal representative from the stage at which they stood on the date of death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Situation 2: Proceedings Are Initiated After Death<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where proceedings are sought to be initiated only after the assessee has died, Section 159(2)(b) permits proceedings which could have been taken against the deceased, had he survived, to be taken&nbsp;<strong>against the legal representative<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This distinction was central to the Bombay High Court&#8217;s reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal representative is also treated as an assessee for purposes of the Act under Section 159(3), subject to the statutory framework governing the extent of his liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Readers may refer directly to the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.incometaxindia.gov.in\/w\/section-159-29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">official text of Section 159 on the Income Tax Department website<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cases Relied Upon<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">1. Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai &amp; Ors.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong><br><strong>2019 (2) TMI 1209 \u2013 Bombay High Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision was relied upon for the principle that a reopening notice issued in the name of a deceased person involves a&nbsp;<strong>foundational and jurisdictional defect<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Such a defect cannot simply be cured by invoking Sections 292B or 292BB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principle is significant because provisions intended to cure technical defects cannot ordinarily be used to create jurisdiction where the foundational statutory requirement itself has not been fulfilled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">2. N. Binoj &amp; Others v. Income Tax Officer, Tirur &amp; Others<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Kerala High Court<\/strong><br><strong>2024 (12) TMI 1432 \u2013 Kerala High Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court similarly dealt with reassessment initiated against a deceased assessee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision supports the principle that a notice initiating reassessment against a person who had already died is invalid and cannot legally constitute the foundation for subsequent reassessment proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why This Judgment Matters for Section 148 Notices<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision reinforces an important distinction between a&nbsp;<strong>procedural defect<\/strong>&nbsp;and a&nbsp;<strong>jurisdictional defect<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Not every mistake in an income-tax notice makes the entire proceeding invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, certain defects can go to the root of jurisdiction\u2014for example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>notice issued to a deceased or non-existent person;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>absence of mandatory statutory sanction;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>failure to comply with mandatory pre-reassessment requirements;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>proceeding initiated by an authority lacking jurisdiction; or<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>failure to provide the statutory opportunity contemplated under law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Taxpayers receiving reopening notices should therefore examine the notice itself before responding only to the allegations on merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For a broader discussion of current reassessment law, readers may also refer to our analysis of&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/section-147a-reassessment-notices\/\">Section 147A reassessment notices and the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling on faceless reassessment<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another useful judicial development is our analysis of the Supreme Court decision concerning&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/sanand-properties-sc-ruling-reopening-section-147-148-change-of-opinion\/\">reopening under Sections 147\/148, change of opinion and tangible material<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These rulings demonstrate why a Section 148 notice should be examined both&nbsp;<strong>factually and jurisdictionally<\/strong>&nbsp;before a substantive response is filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Practical Action Plan for Legal Heirs<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If an income-tax notice is received in the name of a person who has already died, it should&nbsp;<strong>not simply be ignored<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal heir should ordinarily:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Check the date of death against the date of the notice.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Identify the statutory provision<\/strong>\u00a0under which the notice has been issued.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Determine whether the proceedings had already commenced during the assessee&#8217;s lifetime or were initiated only after death.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Inform the Income Tax Department of the death, if this has not already been recorded.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Complete legal-heir registration on the Income Tax e-Filing Portal, wherever applicable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Keep the death certificate and documents establishing legal-representative status readily available.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where the foundational notice itself was issued after death in the deceased person&#8217;s name, raise the\u00a0<strong>jurisdictional objection expressly and at the earliest opportunity<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Avoid filing a reply only on merits without examining whether doing so may prejudice the jurisdictional objection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Check whether the Department is still within the applicable limitation period to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representative.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where substantial tax exposure is involved, obtain a proper review of the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/tax-litigation.html\">reassessment notice and income tax litigation strategy<\/a>\u00a0before submitting a detailed response.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What About the Income-tax Act, 2025?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The reassessment framework has been renumbered under the Income-tax Act, 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>old Section 147 \u2192\u00a0<strong>Section 279<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>old Section 148A \u2192\u00a0<strong>Section 280<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>old Section 148 \u2192\u00a0<strong>Section 281<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Taxpayers and professionals dealing with notices under the new law can use our free&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/income-tax-act-2025-section-finder\/\">Income-tax Act 1961 \u2194 2025 Section Finder<\/a>&nbsp;to identify corresponding provisions quickly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For older assessment years and pending proceedings, however, the applicable statutory and transitional provisions should always be examined carefully rather than merely substituting the new section number for the old provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently Asked Questions<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">1. Is an income tax notice issued to a deceased person valid?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where a foundational reassessment notice is issued&nbsp;<strong>after the assessee&#8217;s death but in the deceased person&#8217;s own name<\/strong>, courts have treated such initiation as invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where proceedings are initiated after death, the Department must proceed against the appropriate legal representative in accordance with Section 159 and other applicable provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">2. Can the Income Tax Department reopen an assessment after the taxpayer dies?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Yes.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Death by itself does not prevent assessment or reassessment of income relating to the deceased taxpayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the proceedings must be initiated or continued against the appropriate legal representative in the manner permitted by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">3. Can Section 159 cure a Section 148A notice issued to a deceased assessee?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Not merely by subsequently substituting the legal representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court held that Section 159 permits proceedings to be taken against the legal representative; it does not validate a foundational proceeding initiated against a person who was already dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.incometaxindia.gov.in\/w\/section-159-29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">official text of Section 159<\/a>&nbsp;itself distinguishes between proceedings taken before death and proceedings which may subsequently be taken against the legal representative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">4. What happens if the legal heir replies to the notice?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mere participation does not necessarily cure a jurisdictional defect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In&nbsp;<strong>Rajkumar Harlalka<\/strong>, the legal heir expressly raised the jurisdictional objection. The High Court held that participation could not confer jurisdiction where jurisdiction did not otherwise exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, legal heirs should carefully frame their response rather than reply only on the merits of the alleged income escapement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">5. Can the Department issue a fresh notice after the earlier notice is quashed?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Potentially,&nbsp;<strong>yes<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court expressly left it open to the Department to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representative if such proceedings are otherwise permissible under law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Limitation and all other statutory conditions would still have to be satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">6. What should a legal heir do after receiving a Section 148 notice in the deceased person&#8217;s name?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal heir should verify the date of death, date of notice, Department&#8217;s prior knowledge, legal-heir registration, applicable limitation period and whether the proceeding was initiated before or after death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where necessary, the jurisdictional objection should be raised before responding substantively to the allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Professional assistance for&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/tax-litigation.html\">Section 148\/148A reassessment proceedings<\/a>&nbsp;may be advisable where the amount involved is substantial or the validity of the notice itself is disputed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bombay High Court&#8217;s decision in&nbsp;<strong>Rajkumar Harlalka (Legal Heir of Late Balkrishna Sohanlal Harlalka) v. ITO<\/strong>reinforces a fundamental rule of reassessment law:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Jurisdiction must be validly assumed at the very beginning of the proceedings.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where an assessee has already died, an&nbsp;<strong>Income Tax Notice to Deceased Person<\/strong>&nbsp;cannot serve as the valid statutory foundation for reassessment merely because the Department later substitutes the legal heir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 159 enables assessment and reassessment through the legal representative. It does not permit an invalid proceeding against a dead person to be retrospectively repaired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment assumes even greater significance because, in this case, the Income Tax Department had already recognised the legal heir on its e-Filing Portal almost&nbsp;<strong>two years before<\/strong>&nbsp;issuing the impugned notice in the deceased assessee&#8217;s name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, whenever a legal heir receives a&nbsp;<strong>Section 148 or Section 148A notice<\/strong>, the first review should not be confined to the alleged escaped income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The following should also be examined:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Who was the notice issued to? When was it issued? Was that person alive on that date? Did the Department already know about the death? Was the correct legal representative proceeded against? Is the proceeding within limitation? Were all mandatory jurisdictional requirements satisfied?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These questions can sometimes determine the validity of the reassessment itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For assistance in dealing with reassessment, jurisdictional objections, faceless proceedings and appellate remedies, refer to our&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/tax-litigation.html\">Income Tax Reassessment &amp; Tax Litigation Services<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Related Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/section-147a-reassessment-notices\/\">Section 147A Reassessment Notices \u2013 Supreme Court&#8217;s Remand on Faceless Assessment<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/sanand-properties-sc-ruling-reopening-section-147-148-change-of-opinion\/\">Reopening under Sections 147\/148 \u2013 Supreme Court on Change of Opinion &amp; Tangible Material<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/income-tax-act-2025-section-finder\/\">Income-tax Act 1961 \u2194 2025 Section Finder<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong>&nbsp;This article is intended for professional and educational information and should not be treated as legal or tax advice for any particular case. The validity of reassessment proceedings depends upon the applicable law, assessment year, facts, limitation, nature and timing of notices, and other jurisdictional requirements.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Income Tax Notice to Deceased Person Invalid \u2013 Bombay High Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1644,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1554,42,14,662],"tags":[1553,1551,847,1550,1257,1351,1552,1549],"class_list":["post-1643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court","category-income-tax","category-reassessment-notice","tag-bombay-high-court","tag-deceased-assessee","tag-income-tax-notice","tag-legal-heir","tag-reassessment","tag-section-148","tag-section-148a","tag-section-159"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1643"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1643\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1645,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1643\/revisions\/1645"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}