आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.10.2025 for AY 2016-17.

2. At the beginning of the proceedings, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 in the name of a deceased assessee, who had passed away on 26.07.2018. Consequently, it was contended that the assessment order, along with all subsequent notices and proceedings, is void ab initio and legally non est. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Rajakumari v. Income Tax Officer [2023 (11) TMI 541 – Madras High Court, dated 18.10.2023]/102 CCH 118 and Alamelu Veerappan v. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai [2018] 95 taxmann.com

155 / 257 Taxman 72 (Madras), dated 07.06.2018.

3. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). She submitted that the legal representatives of the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings, with representation made by Ms. B. Kavitha, the legal heir of the deceased assessee. It was further argued that the alleged defect is a procedural irregularity that is curable under section 292B of the Act.

4. We have considered the rival submissions, examined the records, and reviewed the judicial precedents relied upon by the learned AR for the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee passed away on 26.07.2018, and the Assessing Officer was duly informed of the death. However, no notice under section 159 of the Act was issued to the legal representatives of the assessee, and at no stage were the assessment proceedings initiated against them. Although Ms. B. Kavitha, participated in the assessment proceedings, the proceedings were not formally conducted against the legal heirs. The assessment order as well as the impugned order have been passed in the name of a deceased person.

5. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Alamelu Veerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras)/[2018] 257 Taxman

72 (Madras)[ 07.06.2018] held as under:

13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

14. The issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act issued in the name of the dead person - the said Mr.S.Veerappan is enforceable in law and the subsidiary issue being as to whether the petitioner, being the wife of the said Mr.S.Veerappan, can be compelled to participate in the proceedings and respond to the impugned notice. The fact that the said Mr.S.Veerappan died on 26.1.2010 is not in dispute. If this fact is not disputed, then the notice issued in the name of the dead person is unenforceable in the eye of law.

15. The Department seeks to justify their stand by contending that they were not intimated about the death of the assessee, that the legal heirs did not take any steps to cancel the PAN registration in the name of the assessee and that therefore, the Department was justified in directing the petitioner to co-operate in the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice.

16. The settled legal principle being that a notice issued in the name of the dead person is unenforceable in law. If such is the legal position, would the Revenue be justified in contending that they, having no knowledge about the death of the assessee, are entitled to plead that the notice is not defective. In my considered view, the answer to the question should be definitely against the Revenue.

17. This Court supports such a conclusion with the following reasons : Admittedly, the limitation period for issuance of notice for reopening expired on 31.3.2017. The i