आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2. One of the legal issues (G.No.5) raised by the assessee vide grounds of appeal filed on 07.08.2025 is as under:

5) In view of this, the assessment framed on a deceased person is bad in law and not legally sustainable. It has been judicially held that no proceedings shall be initiated after demise of a person until the legal heir of the assessee is brought to record. For proper initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings, the AO should have initiated the proceedings by bringing in legal heir of the assessee.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee died on 09.07.2019. The notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) both dated 31.03.2024 has been issued by ITO, Ward 1(1), Salem. A copy of Notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) is enclosed in paper book page no 12 to 15. The ld.AR for the assessee contended that the assessment framed on a deceased person is bad in law and not legally sustainable. He further contended that no proceedings shall be initiated after demise of a person until the legal heir of the assessee is brought to record. A copy of death certificate and legal heir certificate is enclosed in paper book page no 3 to 6. In this connection he placed reliance on the decision of AlameluVeerappan vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras)/[2018] 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) [07-06-2018]. A copy of aforesaid decision is enclosed in paper book page no 7 to 11.

4. The ld.DR-CIT for the revenue contended that the LR’s of the assessee is/are duty bound to inform the Income Tax Department regarding demise of the assessee however never informed the revenue/department. Hence, he pleaded that the notice u/s.148 and consequential orders are valid in the eye of law.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. 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] at para 17 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 cooperate 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 impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person