The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Smt. Asha Dubey v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & 2 Others, has held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the name of a person who had already died is void ab initio. The Court ruled that such a foundational jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by subsequently substituting the legal representative or by invoking Sections 159, 292B or 292BB of the Act.
The judgment was delivered on 21 July 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary in Writ Tax No. 571 of 2026.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was the wife and legal representative of late Shri Sanjay Dubey, who died on 7 January 2024. The Income Tax Department subsequently issued a notice dated 28 March 2025 under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2021–22 in the name of the deceased assessee. The reassessment was based on material allegedly recovered during a search conducted on the Omaxe Group, indicating an alleged unaccounted cash transaction connected with the purchase of a residential property.
Further notices under Section 142(1) were also issued in the name of the deceased. After the petitioner informed the Department about her husband’s death and raised a jurisdictional objection, the Assessing Officer rejected the objection, substituted the petitioner’s name as legal representative and proceeded to pass an assessment order under Section 147. An additional income of ₹69,06,520 was assessed and a tax demand of ₹39,67,330 was raised.
The petitioner challenged the original Section 148 notice, the notices issued under Section 142(1), the rejection of her objections, the reassessment order and the consequential demand.
Notice to a Dead Person Is a Jurisdictional Nullity
The High Court held that a notice under Section 148 is the foundation for assumption of jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. The notice must therefore be issued in the name of the correct and existing person. A notice addressed to a person who had already died is not a procedural irregularity but a substantive jurisdictional defect.
The Court explained that a deceased person has no legal personality or capacity to receive a notice, submit a return, file a reply, participate in proceedings or challenge an assessment. Consequently, reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are legally non-existent from their inception.
All consequential notices, proceedings, assessment orders and demands founded upon such an invalid notice must also fail.
Scope of Section 159
The Revenue relied on Section 159, which deals with the liability of legal representatives of a deceased assessee. The Court, however, distinguished between the two situations contemplated under Section 159(2).
Where valid proceedings had been initiated during the assessee’s lifetime, Section 159(2)(a) permits their continuation against the legal representative after the assessee’s death. Where proceedings are sought to be initiated after the assessee has died, Section 159(2)(b) requires the Department to initiate them directly in the name of the legal representative within the statutory limitation period.
Section 159 does not authorise the Department to first issue a notice to a dead person and thereafter cure the defect by substituting the legal representative. The initial jurisdictional notice must itself be valid.
Section 292B Cannot Cure the Defect
The High Court rejected the Department’s contention that the incorrect description of the noticee was a mistake curable under Section 292B.
Section 292B protects proceedings from invalidation on account of technical mistakes, defects or omissions where the proceeding is, in substance and effect, in conformity with the Income-tax Act. A notice issued to a dead person is fundamentally contrary to the statutory requirement under Section 148 and therefore cannot be characterised as a clerical or technical error.
The identity and existence of the person to whom the jurisdictional notice is addressed are essential conditions for a valid reassessment. The defect thus goes to the root of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction.
Participation Does Not Confer Jurisdiction
The Revenue also relied upon Section 292BB and argued that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and had earlier caused an income-tax return to be filed in the name of the deceased.
The Court held that Section 292BB applies where the assessee appears or cooperates in proceedings and thereafter objects to defects in the service of notice. In the present case, the assessee was already dead. His legal representative could not be treated as the original assessee for validating a notice that was void from inception.
The petitioner had also repeatedly raised a jurisdictional objection after learning of the reassessment proceedings. Mere filing of objections or responses could not amount to waiver, nor could participation confer jurisdiction upon an authority where the statute itself did not provide such jurisdiction.
Equity Cannot Override a Taxing Statute
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had wrongly caused a return to be filed in the name of her deceased husband and verified it through his Aadhaar authentication. It observed that the Revenue was at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for any violation arising from such conduct, including the provisions concerning verification of returns.
However, the petitioner’s conduct could not validate an otherwise void reassessment notice. Taxing statutes must be strictly construed, particularly where jurisdictional conditions are involved. Principles such as estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, approbation and reprobation cannot be used to create taxing jurisdiction that does not exist under the statute.
Fresh Notice Could Not Be Issued Under Section 150
The High Court further rejected the Department’s request for liberty to issue a fresh notice to the legal representative by invoking Section 150(1).
It held that an order quashing a notice issued to a deceased person as void ab initio does not constitute a “finding” or “direction” requiring reassessment within the meaning of Section 150(1). The High Court’s decision merely records that no valid reassessment proceeding had ever commenced.
Section 150 could not be used as a mechanism to revive proceedings after the limitation prescribed under Section 149 had expired. The Department was required to issue a proper notice directly to the legal representative within limitation under Section 159(2)(b). Having failed to do so, it could not rely upon the order quashing the invalid notice to overcome the statutory bar.
Decision of the High Court
The Allahabad High Court quashed the notice dated 28 March 2025 issued under Section 148 and set aside all consequential proceedings, orders and demands. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, for consideration of the statutory lacuna relating to proceedings against the estate and legal representatives of deceased taxpayers. It observed that Parliament may consider suitable amendments if necessary.
Key Takeaway
A reassessment notice issued after the assessee’s death must be addressed directly to the legal representative within the limitation prescribed under the Income-tax Act. A notice issued in the name of the deceased is void ab initio, cannot be cured under Sections 159, 292B or 292BB, and cannot be revived beyond limitation through Section 150.