LATE SATISH MEHTA THRU LH KAPIL MEHTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 34(4) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4646/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without impleading the legal representative are void ab initio. Issuing notices to a dead person is illegal and invalid, and therefore, no valid jurisdiction can be assumed. Consequently, the assessment order is quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Satish Mehta, passed away on 10.11.2016. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings and issued notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) and passed an assessment order in the name of the deceased assessee. The legal heir, Shri Kapil Mehta, contended that these proceedings were invalid as they were initiated against a dead person.

What were the issues?

Whether assessment proceedings and order framed in the name of a deceased person, without involving the legal heir, are valid and legal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 159,Section 2(7),Section 148,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA, Shri Arvind Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.08.2025

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 06.08.2024 for A.Y 2017-18. ITA No. 4646/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] Late Satish Mehta Vs.ITO

2.

The assessee has raised six substantive grounds of appeal. Vide

Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the juri iction of the Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed

juri iction and further erred in framing assessment on a dead person.

Vide the other grounds, the assessee has challenged the disallowances

made in the assessment order.

3.

The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Office

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →