LATE SH MANGAT SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH MUKESH TYAGI,HAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER HAPUR, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2751/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 September 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an order passed against a deceased person is not sustainable. It directed that the order should be passed in the name of the legal heir after proper verification and providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Assessee against an order passed by the NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that the impugned order was passed against a deceased person, which is not legally tenable.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) against a deceased person is valid and sustainable in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chaudhari, Adv. (Through V.C.) &, Shri Gagan Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.09.2025Pronounced: 03.09.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 LATE SH. MANGAT SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI HAPUR, U.P. MUKESH TYAGI, H.NO. 908, NEAR JATT MANDIR, DELHI ROAD, CHAMRI HAPUR, HAPUR, UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: LBQPS1077P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. Roy Chaudhari, Adv. (Through V.C.) & Shri Gagan Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.5.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been made on a dead person namely Late Shri Mangat Singh, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, it should be made in the name of legal heir of (Assessee) Shri Mangat Singh, namely Shri Mukesh Tyagi, after putting his name on record being legal heir of Late Shri Mangat Singh. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR.

3.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, I find considerable force in the contention of the Ld. AR that impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed on a dead person, which is not tenable, however, impugned order should be passed in the name of legal heir of Late Shri Mangat Singh namely Shri Mukesh Tyagi. In view of above and in the interest of justice, I deem it fit and proper to send back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the same, afresh and pass a speaking order in the name of Legal Heir Shri Mukesh Tyagi, after verification of necessary documentary evidences and grant him adequate opportunity of being heard, in accordance with law. I hold and direct accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.09.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →