A notice arrives in the name of someone who has died. Is it valid?
Not where the proceedings were never begun in their lifetime. Section 159(2)(b) requires the notice to go to the legal representative. Serving a person who no longer exists is a jurisdictional failure and s.292B cannot cure it.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma) on 2025-01-08, reported as [2025] 170 taxmann.com 825 (Delhi); W.P.(C) 8184/2023 and CM APPL. 31377/2023 (Stay). It bears on section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 159, section 159(2)(b), section 292B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening matters.
Families routinely reply to a notice addressed to a parent who has died, and by doing so fight a case that never validly started. The one distinction that decides it: was the notice issued before or after the death?
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Lal Chand Verma died on 30 July 2021. Acting on a statement said to have been made by another assessee, Sanjay Jain, in that other assessee's own assessment proceedings, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under s.148A(b) dated 30 March 2023 for assessment year 2019-20, calling on the deceased to explain why certain financial transactions should not be treated as income chargeable to tax. On 1 April 2023 his son and legal heir, Puneet Verma, replied informing the officer of the death, enclosing the death certificate and asserting that the notice was null and void ab initio. Notwithstanding that, on 13 April 2023 the officer passed the order under s.148A(d) and issued the accompanying notice under s.148, treating financial transactions of Rs 14,55,000 as taxable income for assessment year 2019-20. The son petitioned under Article 226; the writ was filed in his name as legal heir.
The writ petition was allowed. The s.148A(b) notice dated 30 March 2023 for assessment year 2019-20 was quashed, and all consequential orders and proceedings arising from it — including the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice — were quashed and set aside (para 9). The Court held the matter squarely covered by its own earlier decisions in Savita Kapila and Dharamraj (para 4). On the revenue's reliance on s.159, it held that no notice had been issued to the legal heir under s.159(2)(b) despite the officer having been told of the death, and that s.159 applies where proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during his lifetime and the legal representative then takes over — which was not the position here, so s.159 was not applicable (para 7).
The Court disposed of the matter after hearing the petitioner alone on the point, saying at the outset that the impugned notices could not be sustained in law because the case was squarely covered by Savita Kapila and Dharamraj (para 4). It set out a passage from Savita Kapila at length (para 5) — that an alternative remedy is no bar where a notice is wholly without jurisdiction, that if the notice goes so does the assessment order, and that issuing the notice in the name of the correct person and not a dead person is a condition precedent rather than a procedural requirement. Those words are Savita Kapila's, reproduced, not this Bench's own formulation. The revenue's answer was that s.159 made the defect curable; the Court set out the whole of s.159 (para 6) and rejected the argument on a short ground: no notice had gone to the legal heir under s.159(2)(b) even after the death was disclosed, and s.159 operates where proceedings were initiated and were pending in the assessee's lifetime, with the legal representative assuming responsibility on the death — which was not this case (para 7). It added that in Dharamraj, where the assessee had likewise died well before the s.148 notice issued, that notice was held unsustainable and s.292B was held not to apply in such a situation (para 8).
Section 159 of the Act is applicable when proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during their lifetime, and the legal representative assumes responsibility after the assessee's death. This was not the factual scenario in the present case; therefore, Section 159 of the Act is not applicable here.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot where the proceedings were never begun in their lifetime. Section 159(2)(b) requires the notice to go to the legal representative. Serving a person who no longer exists is a jurisdictional failure and s.292B cannot cure it. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma) and bears on section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 159, section 159(2)(b), section 292B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2025] 170 taxmann.com 825 (Delhi); W.P.(C) 8184/2023 and CM APPL. 31377/2023 (Stay). Families routinely reply to a notice addressed to a parent who has died, and by doing so fight a case that never validly started. The one distinction that decides it: was the notice issued before or after the death? If it applies to you, the first step is this: Send the death certificate to the Assessing Officer in writing, and keep proof of the date it was sent.
Lal Chand Verma died on 30 July 2021. Acting on a statement said to have been made by another assessee, Sanjay Jain, in that other assessee's own assessment proceedings, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under s.148A(b) dated 30 March 2023 for assessment year 2019-20, calling on the deceased to explain why certain financial transactions should not be treated as income chargeable to tax. On 1 April 2023 his son and legal heir, Puneet Verma, replied informing the officer of the death, enclosing the death certificate and asserting that the notice was null and void ab initio. Notwithstanding that, on 13 April 2023 the officer passed the order under s.148A(d) and issued the accompanying notice under s.148, treating financial transactions of Rs 14,55,000 as taxable income for assessment year 2019-20. The son petitioned under Article 226; the writ was filed in his name as legal heir. The matter was decided on 2025-01-08 by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed. The s.148A(b) notice dated 30 March 2023 for assessment year 2019-20 was quashed, and all consequential orders and proceedings arising from it — including the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice — were quashed and set aside (para 9). The Court held the matter squarely covered by its own earlier decisions in Savita Kapila and Dharamraj (para 4). On the revenue's reliance on s.159, it held that no notice had been issued to the legal heir under s.159(2)(b) despite the officer having been told of the death, and that s.159 applies where proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during his lifetime and the legal representative then takes over — which was not the position here, so s.159 was not applicable (para 7).
The Court disposed of the matter after hearing the petitioner alone on the point, saying at the outset that the impugned notices could not be sustained in law because the case was squarely covered by Savita Kapila and Dharamraj (para 4). It set out a passage from Savita Kapila at length (para 5) — that an alternative remedy is no bar where a notice is wholly without jurisdiction, that if the notice goes so does the assessment order, and that issuing the notice in the name of the correct person and not a dead person is a condition precedent rather than a procedural requirement. Those words are Savita Kapila's, reproduced, not this Bench's own formulation. The revenue's answer was that s.159 made the defect curable; the Court set out the whole of s.159 (para 6) and rejected the argument on a short ground: no notice had gone to the legal heir under s.159(2)(b) even after the death was disclosed, and s.159 operates where proceedings were initiated and were pending in the assessee's lifetime, with the legal representative assuming responsibility on the death — which was not this case (para 7). It added that in Dharamraj, where the assessee had likewise died well before the s.148 notice issued, that notice was held unsustainable and s.292B was held not to apply in such a situation (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Section 159 of the Act is applicable when proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during their lifetime, and the legal representative assumes responsibility after the assessee's death. This was not the factual scenario in the present case; therefore, Section 159 of the Act is not applicable here." The decision followed or applied Savita Kapila v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46 / 273 Taxman 148 / 426 ITR 502 (Delhi); Dharamraj v. ITO [2022] 441 ITR 462 (Delhi).
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-01-08 and is reported as [2025] 170 taxmann.com 825 (Delhi); W.P.(C) 8184/2023 and CM APPL. 31377/2023 (Stay). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 159, section 159(2)(b), section 292B, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed. The s.148A(b) notice dated 30 March 2023 for assessment year 2019-20 was quashed, and all consequential orders and proceedings arising from it — including the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice — were quashed and set aside (para 9). The Court held the matter squarely covered by its own earlier decisions in Savita Kapila and Dharamraj (para 4). On the revenue's reliance on s.159, it held that no notice had been issued to the legal heir under s.159(2)(b) despite the officer having been told of the death, and that s.159 applies where proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during his lifetime and the legal representative then takes over — which was not the position here, so s.159 was not applicable (para 7). It arises in Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 159, section 159(2)(b), section 292B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court — Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Note the date the notice was issued against the date of death — that comparison is the whole point. If the notice issued during the lifetime, s.159 lets the department continue against the legal representative; the answer is different, so do not assume it is void.
Still good law. Squarely confirmed by the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Asha Dubey v Union of India, WRIT TAX No. 571 of 2026 / 2026:AHC-LKO:48354-DB (23 July 2026), holding that a s.148 notice in the name of a dead person is void ab initio, that 'the fact of issuance of notice against a dead person is a jurisdictional error that cannot be cured resorting to Section 292B', and that s.159 permits proceedings against a legal heir only if the original notice issued during the assessee's lifetime. A Delhi HC decision reported in January 2025 confirms the converse limb — s.159 can be invoked where the reassessment notice was issued during the lifetime. None of the Finance Act 2026 retrospective validating provisions (147A, 292BA, 292BC) reaches notices to deceased persons. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The date is settled: 8 January 2025, reported at [2025] 170 taxmann.com 825 (Delhi). Two things to be careful about when citing it. The phrase 'void ab initio', which circulates as this case's holding, is not the Court's — it is what the legal heir asserted in his reply of 1 April 2023 (para 3); the Court's own operative reasoning is the narrower point at para 7 that s.159 does not apply where nothing was pending in the assessee's lifetime. And the much-quoted proposition that issuing notice to the correct person is a condition precedent and not a procedural requirement is a passage this Bench reproduces from Savita Kapila (para 5), so cite Savita Kapila for it. The holding that s.292B cannot save such a notice is likewise recorded at para 8 as Dharamraj's holding, not as an independent finding here. The distinction that matters is whether the notice issued before or after the death. Where it issued during the lifetime, s.159(2)(a) permits continuation against the legal representative, and the Court's reasoning at para 7 assumes that line rather than deciding it. The judgment was decided after hearing counsel for the petitioner on the point covered by precedent, and does not deal with limitation under s.149 or with liberty to issue a fresh notice on the legal heir. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed. The s.148A(b) notice dated 30 March 2023 for assessment year 2019-20 was quashed, and all consequential orders and proceedings arising from it — including the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice — were quashed and set aside (para 9). The Court held the matter squarely covered by its own earlier decisions in Savita Kapila and Dharamraj (para 4). On the revenue's reliance on s.159, it held that no notice had been issued to the legal heir under s.159(2)(b) despite the officer having been told of the death, and that s.159 applies where proceedings are initiated and pending against an assessee during his lifetime and the legal representative then takes over — which was not the position here, so s.159 was not applicable (para 7).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?