THAMBURAJ BERNET MARY JAYASEELI,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI V. ITO, WARD2(1), CHENNAI, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

ITA 3422/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli, the legal heir and widow of the deceased Shri Joseph David Selvaraj, against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(1), Trichy. The assessment was made for the Assessment Year 2019-20 despite the fact that Shri Joseph David Selvaraj had passed away on 23.07.2021. The legal representative brought to the Tribunal's attention that the ITO had been informed of the death prior to the issuance of the assessment order, yet proceeded with the assessment in the name of the deceased. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu v. ITO, which established that notices issued in the name of a deceased person are unenforceable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835364 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Alamelu v. ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 [Madras], Vipin Walia, Rasid Lala, Spice Entertainment Ltd., Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR CHANDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R. SANTHANU
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Procedural lapse
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3422/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli W/o. Joseph David Selvaraj, 104/8, Mission Kovil Street, Crawford, Tiruchirappalli-620 012. [PAN: KOHPS 3871 C] v. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy. (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.R. Santhanu, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Legal Heir & widow of the assessee, decased Shri Joseph David Selvaraj, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 30.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2019-20. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee in this case Shri Joseph David Selvaraj had expired on 23.07.2021, which fact was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3422/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli :: 2 :: (AO) on 25.05.2023, pursuant to the notice issued by him u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act”) on 29.03.2023; and despite the same, he (AO) had passed the assessment order in the name of the deceased- person which is non-est order and for such a proposition, the Ld.AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu v. ITO reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 [Madras] wherein their Lordships had an occasion to consider similar issue and their Lordships held that if a notice has been issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act in the name of the deceased-person, it is unenforceable in law. And their Lordships have added that even if the legal-heir of the deceased person is compelled to participate in the assessment proceedings and had responded to the statutory notice issued by the AO u/s.148 of the Act, still such notice (in the name of the deceased-person) is unenforceable in law. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is 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. 3. Coming to the present case in respect of the legal issue it is noted that the assessee Shri Joseph David Selvaraj expired on 23.07.2021, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3422/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli :: 3 :: which fact is evidenced by the Death Certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, Tiruchirappalli Corporation. And pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2023 u/s.148 of the Act issued in the name of Shri Joseph David Selvaraj, it was duly brought to his (AO) notice [vide letter dated 25.05.2023 found placed at Page No.10 of the Paper Book along with the Death Certificate at Page No.9 of the Paper Book] that the assessee has expired on 23.07.2021. In such a scenario, it is found that the AO was informed about the death of the assessee/Shri Joseph David Selvaraj within two months of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. Despite knowing about the death of the assessee, still the AO went ahead framing the assessment order on 26.03.2024 in the name of the deceased-person/ Shri Joseph David Selvaraj which impugned action, we find to be a jurisdictional defect, since no assessment should have been framed against a deceased-person. Therefore, the impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29.03.2023 and the consequent assessment order passed on 26.03.2024 is held to be a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the assessee succeeds on the legal issue and we quash the assessment order dated 26.03.2024 framed in the name of the deceased- person/Shri Joseph David Selvaraj, for such action, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu [supra] wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3422/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli :: 4 :: 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 eve 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 impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person. On being intimated about the death, the Department sent the notice to the petitioner -his spouse to participate in the proceedings. This notice was well beyond the period of limitation, as it has been issued after 31.3.2017. If we approach the problem sans complicated facts, a notice issued beyond the period of limitation i.e. 31.3.2017 is a nullity, unenforceable in law and without jurisdiction. Thus, merely because the Department was not intimated about the death of the assessee, that cannot, by itself, extend the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute. Nothing has been placed before this Court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee to immediately intimate the death of the assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration. 18. In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether Section 159 of the Act would get attracted. The answer to this question would be in the negative, as the proceedings under Section 159 of the Act can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs. The factual position in the instant case being otherwise, the provisions of Section 159 of the Act have no application. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3422/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli :: 5 :: 19. The Revenue seeks to bring their case under Section 292 of the Act to state that the defect is a curable defect and on that ground, the impugned notice cannot be declared as invalid. 20. The language employed in Section 292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported by the decision in the case of Vipin Walia. (supra). In that case, the notice dated 27.3.2015 was issued under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee, who died on 14.3.2015. The validity of the said notice was put to challenge. The Income Tax Officer took a stand that since the Intimation of death of the assessee on 14.3.2015 was not received by her, the notice was issued on a dead person. However, the fact regarding the death of the assessee could not be disputed by the Department. The Department continued the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act and at that stage, the son of the deceased approached the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi pointed out that what was sought to be done by the Income Tax Officer was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act against the deceased assessee for the assessment year 2008-09, for which, the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was 31.3.2015 and on 02.7.2015 when the notice was issued, the assessee was already dead and if the Department intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act, it could have done so prior to 31.3.2015 by issuing the notice to the legal heirs of the deceased and beyond that date, it could not have proceeded in the matter even by issuing notice to the legal representatives of the assessee. The decision in Vipin Walia (supra) fully supports the case of the petitioner herein. 22. The decision in the case of Vipin Walia (supra) was followed in the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rasid Lala, (supra) in which, the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the dead person, that too, after a long delay. The Court pointed out that even if the provisions of Section 159 of the Act are attracted, in that case also, the notice was required to be issued against and in the name of the heirs of the deceased assessee and under the said circumstances, Section 159 of the Act shall not be of any assistance to the Revenue. 23. In the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) one of the questions, which fell for consideration, is as to whether such framing of assessment against a non-existing entity or a dead person could be brought within the ambit of Section 292B of the Act and after referring to the decisions on the point including the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396/145 Taxman 186 it has been held that the provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable and that framing of assessment against a non- existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3422/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Thamburaj Bernet Mary Jayaseeli :: 6 :: procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 24. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has sought to distinguish the decision in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) by referring to Sky Light Hospitality LLP. Case (supra) 25. On a perusal of the factual position therein, the Court came to the conclusion that the defect was curable because it was held that the notice was not addressed to the correct name and that the PAN mentioned was also incorrect. 4. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, on the facts and circumstances discussed supra, we quash the assessment order dated 26.03.2024. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 11th day of February, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 11th February, 2026. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "