LATE MOHMAD SHAHID TH. L/H. SHAHINA SHAHID,ALIGARH vs. ITO.WARD-1(2), , ALIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not proved herself to be the legal representative of the deceased as per the statutory provisions, nor was there any material to establish this fact. Consequently, the appeals could not be entertained.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Smt. Shahina Shahid, filed two appeals against orders confirming the assessment and penalty orders against the deceased Late Shri Mohmad Shahid. She claims to be the legal representative of the deceased.
What were the issues?
Whether the appellant has successfully established her status as the legal representative of the deceased assessee to maintain the appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The appellant herein Smt. Shahina Shahid has filed the instant two appeals against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 27- 12-2021 / 22-12-2021 confirming Ld. AO’s assessment order dated 26-12-2016 as well as penalty u/s 271(1)(c) order dated 07-06-2017.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the appellant Smt. Shahina Shahid has claimed herself to be the legal representative of the deceased Late Shri Mohmad Shahid who is stated to have left for his heavenly abode. The Ld. Sr. DR submits that neither she has proved herself as the legal representative as per Section 2(29) of Income Tax Act r.w.s 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 nor any action has been taken against her u/s 159 of the Act. The aforesaid position remains uncontroverted before us. No material could be shown to us to establish the fact the appellant is legal representative of the deceased assessee in terms of the statutory provisions.
That being the case we are of the considered view that unless an applicant like the present appellant before us proves that he / she is either managing the estate of the deceased or act as an intermeddler or there have been proceedings u/s 159 of the Act, no such appeal could be entertained in the capacity of a legal representative. We accordingly dismiss both the appeals as premature with a liberty to appellant to initiate the same afresh as when the fact is proved that the appellant is managing the estate of the deceased assessee or proceeded with u/s 159 of the Act, as the case may be, whichever is earlier. Ordered accordingly.
Appellant’s both appeal stand dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
More judgments on Section 2(29)
- Anil Tyagi L/H of Late Smt. Suresh Devi… vs ITO Ward 2(3), GhaziabadITA 7501/DEL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
- Simon Marandi, New Delhi vs ACIT, New DelhiITSSA 99/DEL/1997[01/04/1986 to 26/04/1996]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026
- Charanjit Singh Bhasin, New Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, New DelhiITA 8098/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Gaurav Rastogi (Legal Heir of Late Smt… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), GurgaonITA 3723/DEL/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2026AY 2012-2013
- Mukesh Garg Through Legala Heir Gaurav… vs ITO Ward 51(3), DelhiITA 3659/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Atiquiddin Shaikh vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Mr. Gurudev Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra BankMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026