OM PRAKASH ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2 (3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8824/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appellant had not established himself as a legal representative according to the statutory definitions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable at this stage.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by a person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased assessee. The deceased assessee had passed away before the appeal was filed. The appellant claimed to be the legal representative but did not provide evidence of succession or management of the estate.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant is a valid legal representative of the deceased assessee. Whether the appeal is maintainable without proper legal representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 2(29),Section 2(11),Section 159

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: 27.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075543446(1) dated 08.04.2025, 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.

Delay of 179 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

It emerges at the outset that the appellate before us Sh. Ram Kumar Tomar claims himself as the legal representative of the deceased assessee Sh. Om Prakash, who is stated to have left for his heavenly abode on 28.06.2024 (Page 14 in paper

5.

Faced with this situation, I note that there is not even an iota of indication in the appellant’s foregoing application that either he had succeeded to the estate of the deceased or he is managing the same or he is the intermeddler thereof; as the case may be, as per section 2(29) of the Act read with section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure defining such a “legal representative” in very terms. There is further no material on record that the appellate herein has been proceeded against the department under section 159 of the Act as on date.

6.

That being the case, I find no merit in the appellant’s claim as legal representative of the deceased assessee and reject his instant appeal at this stage in very terms subject to a rider that he shall indeed be at liberty to file a fresh appeal as and when he either satisfies the statutory conditions of a “legal representative” under section 2(11) (supra) or he is proceeded against by the department under section 159 of the Act; whichever is earlier. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →