INDRA RANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 142/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 April 2025AY 2015-16Bench: 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 the assessment was not sustainable in law because the assessee had already passed away prior to the initiation of the proceedings. A cited precedent also supported this conclusion.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the legal heir of the deceased assessee against the order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had passed away on 24.06.2018, and the reopening proceedings were initiated later.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment is valid when the assessee had already expired before the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A

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: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Late Indra Rani Vs Income Tax Officer, Through legal heir Pankil Garg (Son) Ward-2(1)(2), A-408, 4th Floor, Tower-A, Saya Ghaziabad-101002 Zenith Apartment, Ahinsa Khand-2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201014 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGSPR0372G Assessee by: Sh. Rajiv Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s/alleged legal heir’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070465202(1) dated 19.11.2024, 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 Smt. Indra Rani had left for her heavenly abode on 24.06.2018 followed by the corresponding section 148A proceedings initiated against her vide notice dated 14.03.2022 onwards. That being the clinching Indra Rani 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/her legal representative’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/04/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →