Reassessment Notice Upheld When Heirs Ignore Death Intimation | HC

Case Detail: Gowthaman S vs. Income-tax Officer - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 426 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Saravanan, J.
• V. Sundareswaran for the Petitioner.
• Mrs S. Premalatha, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a legal heir of a deceased assessee, challenged the order passed under section 148A(d), the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, and the consequential notice of demand under section 156.

The petitioner submitted that the impugned orders and the notice under section 156 had been passed and issued against a person who died on 04-01-2024. As per the petitioner, a notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 31-03-2024, i.e., after the death of the assessee. Thus, the impugned order was liable to be interfered with.

High Court Held

The Madras High Court held that Section 159(2)(b) allows for the continuation of any proceedings that could have been taken against the deceased had he survived. The legal representative can be held liable for any tax that the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died. The mandate of section 159(1) makes clear that when a person dies, his legal representative is liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased.
There were no records to indicate that after the assessee died on 04.1.2024, the petitioner took steps to inform the Income Tax Department about the death of the assessee. It was not open for the petitioner to state that assessment proceedings were initiated after the death of the assessee without notice to the petitioner or other legal representatives.

Thus, a challenge to the very jurisdiction of AO to either issue notice under Section 148A(b) or consequential order under Section 148A(d) and Assessment Order was liable to be rejected.

List of Cases Referred to

• Vipin Walia v. ITO [2016] 67 taxmann.com 56 (Delhi)/[2016] 238 Taxman 1 (Delhi)/[2016] 382 ITR 19 (Delhi) (para 8)
• Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO, Non-corporate [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72 (Madras) (para 9)
• Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi)/[2019] 260 Taxman 412 (Delhi)/[2019] 414 ITR 286 (Delhi) (para 10)
• Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 323 (Bombay)/[2020] 275 Taxman 453 (Bombay)/[2020] 420 ITR 256 (Bombay) (para 10)
• Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty v. Asstt. CIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka) (para 10).