that the impugned proceedings are absolutely bad in the eyes of law as the re-assessment notice was issued to the original assessee Smt. Shobha Mehta who had expired long back and this fact was already in the knowledge of the Income Tax Authorities. He submitted that Re-Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 was issued against the assessee and was addressed to the legal heir of the assessee but, no prior notice of the reopening the assessment proceedings was given to the legal heir. Shri Gargieya submitted that the plea taken by the respondent authorities that the Income Tax Officers were apprised of the demise of the assessee for the first time after issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, is absolutely incorrect inasmuch as, way back in the year 2015-16, reply to notice under Section 143(3) of the Act on behalf of Smt. Shobha Mehta was filed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Udaipur intimating that the assessee had expired on 03.05.2015. Pursuant to receiving the said reply, an assessment order (Annexure-P/5) dated 21.12.2017 was passed wherein, the assessee has been addressed through her legal representative husband Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mehta. He thus urged that the fictitious plea taken by the respondent that the department was not aware regarding death of the assessee, has no foundation and is nothing but a ploy to somehow or the other justify non-service of notice upon the legal heir of the assessee before initiating the re-assessment proceedings. In support of his contentions, Shri Gargieya placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kesar Devi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2009) 227 CTR 621 (Rajasthan) wherein, the Division Bench had held that the notice was issued to the dead person. The case cannot be decided
