J U D G M E N T

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who is the wife and legal heir of late Sh. Vipin Gupta (deceased) assessee, therein, assailing the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] dated 15.02.2024 for the Assessment Year [“AY”] 2020-21 along with consequential order and notice under Section 148-A of the Act, both even dated 21.03.2024, seeking to assess/reassess the income of the deceased assesee.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sh. Vipin Gupta, husband of the petitioner, passed away on 17.08.2019. His return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act could not be filed by his legal representatives.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10162/2024 Page 1 of 6

3. A notice under Section 148-A(b) dated 15.02.2024 was issued in the name of the deceased assessee Sh. Vipin Gupta, asking him to show cause as to why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued. The impugned notice was served through registered post at the address of the deceased assessee, which was received by the petitioner on 19.02.2024.

4. Petitioner filed her response to the impugned notice on 26.02.2024, therein, intimating the death of her husband. Regarding the averments made in the impugned notice, it was submitted that the salary income of Rs. 47,43,930/- received by the deceased assessee during the year under consideration had already been subjected to Deduction of Tax at Source [‘TDS’] under Section 192 of the Act, and therefore, there was no income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment insofar as the salary received by the deceased/assessee was concerned.

5. However, in complete non-consideration of the response filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 proceeded to pass impugned order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act as also issued impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, both even dated 21.03.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the initiation of action under Section 148 in case of the assessee is void ab initio as the notices under Section 148-A(b) and under Section 148 of the Act were issued in the name of a dead person. It is argued that despite having been informed that the assessee has expired, Revenue has proceeded to initiate action under Section 148 of the Act.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10162/2024 Page 2 of 6

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has submitted that the impugned notices and order were passed in accordance with legislative mandate of Section 148 of the Act.

8. The question of the validity of a notice issued against a dead person is no longer res-integra. While dealing with an identical question, this Court in the case of Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P. (C) No. 3258 of 2020 held that the pre-requisite for issuing a notice in the name of the correct person and not in the name of a dead person is sine qua none for acquiring the jurisdiction and initiating action under Section 148 of the Act. The Court while setting aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the name of a dead person, held as follows:-

“26. In the opinion of this court the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act is the foundation for reopening of an assessment. Consequently, the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. (See Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asst. CIT [2019] 414 ITR 292 (Bom); [2019] 2 TMI 1209- Bombay High Court).

27. In Chandresh Jayantibhai Patel v ITO [2019] 413 ITR 276 (Guj), [2019] (1) TMI 353-the Gujarat High Court has also held (page 290 of 413 ITR) : “the question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the no