LATE MAHI PAL SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR NAGENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1007/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law because it was initiated after the assessee had passed away. The appeal was allowed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the legal heir of the assessee, Late Mahi Pal Singh, against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The reassessment proceedings were initiated after the assessee's death.

What were the issues?

Whether reopening of assessment initiated after the death of the assessee is valid in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Late Mahi Pal Singh through Legal Vs Income Tax Officer, heir Nagendra Pratap Singh, Ward-2(3)(2), C/o Arpit Agrawal, Adv., Bulandshahr, Gali No. 2, Lalitraj Enclave, Murari Uttar Pradesh-203001 Lal Ka Pench, Khurja, Uttar Pradesh-203131 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGJPS0976Q Assessee by: Sh. Arpit Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s/alleged legal heir’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072244861(1) dated 16.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset that the appellant has raised a legal ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening for the precise reason that the assessee Sh. Mahi Pal Singh had left for his heavenly abode on 08.08.2011 followed by the corresponding section 148 proceedings initiated against him Late Mahipal Singh vide notice dated 27.03.2019 onwards. That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 Taxmann.com 46 (Del.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law. The same stand quashed in very terms.

4.

This assessee’s/his legal representative’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →