Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Validity of reopening proceedings initiated after the death of the assessee.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 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 ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
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”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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.