Allowing the petition the Court held that the settled legal principle is that a notice issued in the name of the dead person is unenforceable in law. The language employed in S. 292 of the Actis 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. The provisions of S. 292B are not applicable and framing of assessment against a non-existing entity or person goes to the root of the matter, which is not a procedural irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect, as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. Mere intimation by the legal representative that the noticee is dead would not amount to participation in the reassessment proceedings.(R/SA No. 15310 of 2018 dt 27 -08 -2019 ) (AY. 2011-12)
Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja. v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 / 273 Taxman 481 (Guj) (HC)
S.148: Reassessment —Notice in name of dead person — Held to be not valid — Not a defect curable under S. 292B of the Act – Intimation by legal Representative that noticee was dead is not a participation in reassessment proceedings [ S.147 , 292B Art .226 ]