GANPAT RAM SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI

The grievances of the assessee read as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued in the case is bad-in-law, without juri iction and barred by limitation and, therefore, the said notice along with the assessment order passed by the assessing officer on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and CIT (A) erred in not holding so.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated are contrary to the provisions of law including the specific provisions of section 147 to section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated along with assessment order passed are liable to be quashed and CIT (A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,75,220/- made by the assessing officer on account of long-term capital gain. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.1,21,75,220/- made by the assessing officer is beyond the scope of provisions of section 147 / 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter / modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” [A.Y. 2011-12] Ganpat Ram Singhal Vs. ACIT

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that after filing the present appeal, the assessee Shri Ganpat Ram Singhal expired and till date no legal heir has been appointed and brought on record to pursue the appeal. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR raised no serious objection. 5. In view of the above factual position, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with liberty to revive the appeal in the event when the legal heir is brought on record. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2054/DEL/2023 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 02.09.2025. [MADHUMITA ROY]