Reassessment Notice Issued to Deceased Assessee Held Invalid by Karnataka High Court

Background of the Dispute

In Vivek R. Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court), the core controversy revolved around reassessment proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Act 1961 for AY 2020–21. The Department had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) in the name of an assessee who had already expired.

The legal heir approached the Karnataka High Court challenging:

  • The validity of the notices under Section 148A(b) dated 09.03.2024 and 18.03.2024
  • All consequential actions including:
    • Order under Section 148A(d)
    • Reassessment order
    • Penalty orders

The petitioner contended that since the assessee, Late Ramakrishnappa, had passed away much before the issuance of the first notice, any proceedings initiated in his name were without jurisdiction and void from the very beginning.

Facts Presented Before the Court

Parties and Relevant Dates

  • The proceedings were initiated in the name of Ramakrishnappa, the father of the petitioner, Vivek R.
  • Notices under Section 148A(b) were issued on:
    • 09.03.2024 (Annexure-B)
    • 18.03.2024 (Annexure-C)
  • The death certificate (Annexure-A) evidenced that:
    • Ramakrishnappa had died on 20.10.2023

Thus, on the dates when the notices were issued, the assessee was already deceased.

Petitioner’s Stand

The petitioner, being the son and legal heir, argued that:

  1. Notices were addressed to a dead person:

    • The Department continued to treat Late Ramakrishnappa as a living assessee despite his demise on 20.10.2023.
    • The first notice was issued nearly five months after his death.

  2. Proceedings are void ab initio:

    • Any legal action initiated against a person who is no longer alive is a nullity in law.
    • Consequently, every step taken after such an invalid notice, including reassessment and penalty, could not legally stand.

  3. All consequential orders must fall:

    • Since the foundation (i.e., notices under Section 148A(b)) was invalid, the superstructure of proceedings—order under Section 148A(d), reassessment order, and penalty orders—also became unsustainable.

The death certificate placed on record was not disputed by the Revenue, making the factual position clear and undisputed before the Court.

Court’s Consideration and Findings

The Court examined the death certificate at Annexure-A and recorded that:

  • The date of death of Ramakrishnappa was 20.10.2023
  • Both impugned notices under Section 148A(b) were issued after this date

On this basis, the Court held that any proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased person:

“are void in the eye of law and accordingly, petition is required to be allowed.”

This reflects the established legal position that proceedings cannot be validly continued or initiated against a person who is no longer in existence, unless lawfully substituted by legal representatives in accordance with the statute.