Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether reopening of assessment initiated after the death of the assessee is valid in law.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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.
This assessee’s/his legal representative’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025.