SHRUTI AMAR MEHTA ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIR-1(1), PUNE

ITA 2683/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 October 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shruti Amar Mehta, is appealing an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 31.03.2024, based on information that the deceased assessee, Amar Kantilal Mehta, allegedly paid Rs. 30,00,000/- in cash for a flat. The AO completed reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144, adding Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 69, resulting in total income of Rs. 47,71,690/-. The assessee's wife and legal heir had informed the department of Amar Kantilal Mehta's death on 24.05.2023 prior to the notice. The CIT(A)/NFAC restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal on an alternative ground raised during the hearing, held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce concrete evidence that the impugned amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the seized material referred to by the AO did not contain the assessee's name but rather that of Kamlesh Navsariwala, and that Ms. Lucy Roy Choudhary's statement did not name the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the flat was purchased in Assessment Year 2022-23. Respectfully following the decisions of coordinate benches in Ashutosh Pandurang Patil and Abhishek Shivaji Gade, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made under Section 69. Other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person, despite the department being informed of the death prior to the notice under Section 148, are void ab initio and without jurisdiction, as argued by the assessee. The assessee contends that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by observations and Section 292B does not apply to substantive jurisdictional defects. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when based on third-party statements and documents without an opportunity for cross-examination, and when the seized material allegedly refers to a different individual (Kamlesh Navsariwala) and the flat purchase date is disputed, as argued by the assessee. The assessee relies on decisions of coordinate benches in Ashutosh Pandurang Patil vs. ITO and Abhishek Shivaji Gade vs. ITO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 139,Section 132,Section 159,Section 292B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora
For Respondent: Smt. R. M. Brindha
Hearing: 30.07.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the order passed by the Learned CIT(A), which are raised without prejudice to each other.

2

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in setting aside the assessment order without adjudicating the specific legal ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person, despite the fact that the death

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →