GOPI NATH MEHNDIRATTA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KAUSHALYA DEVI,PUNJABI BAGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 45(7), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3120/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Smt. Kaushalya Devi did not meet the criteria of a legal representative as per the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, her application for substitution was declined.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gopi Nath Mehndiratta, filed an appeal for assessment year 2017-18. During the hearing, Smt. Kaushalya Devi claimed to be the legal representative of the deceased assessee and sought substitution. However, she did not possess or control the estate of the deceased.

What were the issues?

Whether Smt. Kaushalya Devi qualifies as a legal representative of the deceased assessee to pursue the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 2(29),Section 2(12)(A),Section 159

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 11.08.2025Pronounced: 11.08.2025

Date of hearing 11.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065683058(1), dated 15.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the appellant herein, namely, Smt. Kaushalya Devi claims herself to be legal representative of the deceased assessee Late Sh. Gopi Nath Mehndiratta. Learned counsel has filed assessee’s application for her substitution as the deceased assessee’s legal heir therefore. We however note from the assessee’s foregoing application itself that she is neither in a possession nor in control of any of the estate of the deceased assessee so as to satisfy the relevant criteria of a “legal” representative under section 2(29) of the Act r.w.s. 2(12)(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The department has also not proceeded against her u/s 159 till date. This being the clinching factual position, we hereby decline the appellant’s endeavour to be treated as the legal representative of the deceased assessee Late Sh. Gopi Nath Mehndiratta in very terms at this stage. Ordered accordingly. All other issues between the parties herein stand rendered academic.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed subject to all just exceptions.

More judgments on Section 2(29)

All 77 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(29) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →