GIRDHARI LAL THROUGH L/H SH. PREMCHAND & OTHERS ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 505/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 February 2026AY 2010-11Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member)1 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 noted that the assessee had passed away before the reopening proceedings were initiated. Citing the precedent of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020), the tribunal held that the impugned reopening itself was not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 arose against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. The assessee's legal ground challenged the validity of the reopening proceedings.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening proceedings initiated after the death of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,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 ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 04.02.2026Pronounced: 04.02.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A), Ghaziabad’s order dated 31.10.2018 in case No. 87/2017-18/Gzb, in proceedings u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

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. Girdhari had left for his heavenly abode on 24.11.2011 followed by the corresponding section 148 proceedings initiated against him vide notice dated 31.03.2017 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →