In the case of Durlabhai Kanubhai Rajpara versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (3) (7), 2019 (4) TMI 784 –HC (Guj.), it was held that any notice issued in the name of a dead person is not valid and bad in law.

The Assessing Officer is under obligation to should drop the original proceedings and issue fresh notices to legal representatives to proceed further in the assessment, subject to bar of limitation.

In the case of CIT vs. Amarchand Shroff, 1962 (10) TMI 51 – SUPREME COURT]it has been held that the individual has ordinarily to be a living person and there could be no assessment on a dead person. Revenue could not bring any material to show that the assessment order was passed after issuing any notice to the legal representative of the deceased individual, hence decided against revenue.

In the case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO [2019 (1) TMI 353 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT], it was held that in view of the provisions of section 159(2)(b) it is permissible for the AO to issue a fresh notice under section 148 of the Act against the legal representative, provided that the same is not barred by limitation; he, however, cannot continue the proceedings on the basis of an invalid notice issued under section 148 of the Act to the dead assessee. Further held that the notice u/s 148 which is a jurisdictional notice, has been issued to a dead person. Upon receipt of such notice, the legal representative has raised an objection to the validity of such notice and has not complied with the same. The legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer pursuant to the impugned notice, the provisions of section 292B would not be attracted and hence, the notice under section 148has to be treated as invalid. In the absence of a valid notice, AO has no authority to assume the jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and, hence, continuation of the proceeding u/s 147 pursuant to such invalid notice, is without authority of law.

Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sumit Balkrishna Gupta. v.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai [2019 (2) TMI 1209 (HC (Bom)] held that the notice issued on a dead person is invalid unenforceable in law – thus notice u/s 148 on a dead person is invalid and accordingly quashed.

In re CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh 1996 (3) TMI 7 (SC) that lack of notice to the legal representatives does not amount to the revenue authority having no jurisdiction, but the assessment was defective by reason of want of notice. It was also observed that an assessment proceeding does not cease to be a proceeding under the Act merely by reason of want of notice.