SIMON MARANDI,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 99/DEL/1997Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 July 202610 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that Shri Dinesh Marandi's claim to be the legal representative of the deceased assessee, Shri Simon Marandi, is rejected at this stage. He is at liberty to pursue the appeal only if he satisfies the mandate of Section 2(29) of the Act or is proceeded against under Section 159 of the Act by the departmental authorities, whichever is earlier. Regarding the substantive appeal, the Tribunal noted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC were based on specific seized material indicating unexplained income and that these additions had gone unrebutted by the assessee throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal and confirmed the Assessing Officer's impugned action. The appeal is dismissed subject to all just exceptions.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the assessee, Simon Marandi, against an assessment order dated 24.09.1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment pertains to a block period from 01.04.1986 to 14.04.1996. The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee, Shri Simon Marandi, passed away on 13.04.2021, and his widow has also expired. The deceased assessee's son, Shri Dinesh Marandi, sought to be substituted as the legal representative. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed in 1997 and had been remanded back by the jurisdictional High Court in 2014. The Revenue's counsel stated that the Assessing Officer had made additions based on seized material indicating unexplained income, which remained unrebutted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Shri Dinesh Marandi qualifies as a legal representative of the deceased assessee, Shri Simon Marandi, under Section 2(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of pursuing the appeal. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC, based on seized material indicating unexplained income, are valid and should be confirmed. Assessee's Contentions: Learned counsel for the assessee argued that Shri Dinesh Marandi is the legal representative and sought an adjournment to complete the necessary formalities. The assessee's side had not rebutted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Revenue's Contentions: Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the Assessing Officer framed the block assessment making various additions in light of specific seized material indicating unexplained income. The Revenue did not explicitly state its contentions regarding the legal representative's eligibility but provided information about the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BC,Section 2(29),Section 159

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 24.07.2026Pronounced: 24.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 99/Del/1997 Assessment Year: 01.04.1986- 26.04.1996

Simon Marandi, Vs Assistant Commissioner of B-25, Shalimar Apartment, Income Tax, Masjid Moth, New Delhi Central Circle-6, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAQPM4135J Assessee by: Sh. Ashok Sikka, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Umesh Chandra Bharti, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing: 24.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24.07.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for block period 01.04.1986 - 14.04.96 arises against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (for short, “the CIT(A)”), Central Circle-6, New Delhi’s assessment order dated 24.09.1997 passed in G.I.R No 28-S/ACIT CC6 ND, involving proceedings u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

3.

Learned counsel next submits that the assessee/appellant herein Shri Simon Marandi has expired wayback on 13.04.2021. And that his widow Mrs. Sushila Marandi has also left for her heavenly abode. Learned counsel’s case is that it is the deceased assessee’s son namely Shri Dinesh Marandi who

9 happens to be the legal representative for the purpose of pursuing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. He further seeks to adjourn the case so as to complete all the necessary formalities to the very effect. Faced with this situation, we sought to ascertain as to whether the deceased assessee’s son herein Mr. Dinesh Marandi qualifies to be impleaded as a legal representative u/s 2(29) of the Act r.w. s. 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defining such a legal representative as having either succeeded to the estate of the deceased or managing the same or as an intermediate thereof; as the case may be. We further put a specific query to the learned counsel as to whether the department has proceeded against him u/s 159 of the Act or not. No positive response to either effect has come from his side. Faced with this situation, we hereby reject Shri Dinesh Marandi claim to be the deceased assessee’s legal representative at this stage subject to a rider that he shall indeed be at liberty to pursue the instant appeal as and when he satisfies either the mandate of the Act us 2(29) of the Act or he is proceeded u/s 159 of the Act by the learned departmental authorities; whichever is earlier, subject to all just exceptions.

4.

We further note that the deceased assessee had filed his instant appeal wayback in the year 1997. Meaning thereby that this is a three decades old appeal. And that their lordships of hon’ble jurisdictional high court have remanded the same back to the tribunal vide order/judgement dated 11.11.2014 in the

10 Revenue’s Tax Appeal ITA No. 128/Del/2012, directed against our former round of adjudication thereupon. It is in this factual backdrop that we hereby notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer has framed his impugned “Block” assessment making various additions in light of the specific seized material indicating unexplained income(s) in the assessment year(s) in issue. All these impugned additions have gone unrebutted from the assessee side all along. We thus see no merit in the assessee’s instant appeal and confirm the learned Assessing Officer’s impugned action therefore.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms subject to all the exceptions.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24.07.2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →