NIKHIL JAIN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. BEENA JAIN,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4001/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 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 held that proceedings initiated after the assessee's demise are not sustainable in law. Citing the precedent of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed for assessment year 2017-18 against an order related to proceedings initiated under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment proceedings were initiated vide a notice dated 17.08.2018, whereas the assessee, Smt. Bina Jain, had already passed away on 03.02.2018.

What were the issues?

Whether assessment proceedings initiated after the death of the assessee are sustainable in law?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This appellant Sh. Nikhil Jain has filed his instant appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072627311(1), dated 28.01.2025, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the appellant’s condonation petition attributing delay for 80 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of the impugned assessment itself initiated vide his notice dated 17.08.2018 whereas the assessee Smt. Bina Jain had already left for her heavenly abode very well before that on 03.02.2018. Learned Assessing Officer had set into motion the impugned proceedings in the assessee’s case very well after her death only. Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) representing Revenue vehemently argues that it was very much incumbent for the deceased assessee’s legal representative(s) to bring her death to the notice of the Assessing Officer.

4.

We find that this instant issue is no more res integra in light of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi) having already decided in the appellant’s favour and against the department that any such proceedings initiated after the assessee’s

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →