Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the reopening was invalid because the assessee had passed away before the Section 148 proceedings were initiated.
Held
The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening was not sustainable in law, citing the case of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT. The appeal was allowed based on this legal ground.
Key Issues
Whether reopening of assessment is valid when the assessee has died prior to the initiation of Section 148 proceedings.
Sections Cited
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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Late Sh. Sanjay Bengani through Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Sh. Mayank Sagar Bengani Ward-5(3)(3), B-100, Sector-31, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301 Noida-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKPB9899G Assessee by: Sh. P. K. Rastogi, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079433979(1) dated 08.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that the appellant has raised a legal ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening for the precise reason that the assessee Sh. Sanjay Bengani had left for his heavenly abode on 13.09.2018 followed by the corresponding section 148 proceedings initiated against him vide notice dated 19.03.2019 onwards. That being the clinching Late Sanjay Bengani through L/H Mayank Sagar Bengani case, I hereby quote Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT (2020) 118 Taxmann.com 46 (Del.) to conclude that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law. The same stand quashed in very terms.
This assessee’s/his legal representative’s appeal is allowed.