LATE SH. MAHA SINGH TH. LEGAL HEIR BIJENDER SINGH,SONIPAT vs. ITO, WARD - 3, SONIPAT

ITA 4568/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Since there was no clear indication in the records about the appellant's legal representative status or if proceedings were initiated against him as per Section 159, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed for AY 2017-18, arising against an order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, Bijender Singh, claimed to be the legal representative of the deceased assessee, Maha Singh, who passed away before the appeal was filed. There was a delay of 153 days in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant is the legal representative of the deceased assessee and whether the Assessing Officer should proceed afresh after verifying the facts?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

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

For Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.01.2026Pronounced: 12.01.2026

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023–24/1060398128(1) dated 01.02.2024, in proceedings u/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 153 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 transpires during the course of hearing that the appellant herein, namely, Sh. Bijender Singh clai

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 159

All 280 judgments and leading authorities on Section 159 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →