Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals for AY 2016-17 arose against an order related to proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of reopening when the assessee had passed away.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had passed away before the reopening proceedings were initiated. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal held that even if the death was not intimated, reopening without proper notice is not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when the assessee had already expired, and the notice was issued after his demise.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These asseessee’s twin appeals 1103/Del/2025 for assessment year 2016-17 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 30.01.2025, having DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072741890(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s.
144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Coming to the appellant/alleged legal representative’s former appeal herein , we note at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the assessee appears to have left for heavenly abode on 23rd June, 2016. Whereas, the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action setting into motion section 148/147 proceedings against him vide notice dated 26.07.2022.
Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that it was indeed incumbent for the assessee’s alleged legal representative (including the appellant herein) to inform about his death to the departmental authorities. We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand as hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) has already settled the issue in appellant’s favour and against the department that even if the learned field authorities are not informed, such a reopening is not sustainable in law. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore. The appellant succeeds in 2 | P a g e his former appeal . The appellant’s latter appeal is hereby dismissed as “duplicate” case file. We make it clear before parting that we are not commenting anything on the appellant’s status as legal representative of the deceased assessee at this stage.