Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO

420 ITR 226High Court2020#10001 most cited

What is Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO authority for?

An assessment notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased assessee without impleading their legal representative is invalid and the proceedings are void ab initio. The notice must be served on the legal representative as per Section 159(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO · Section 148 · Section 159 · legal representative · deceased assessee · invalid notice · void proceedings · reassessment notice · notice to dead person

Also reported as

109 Taxmann.com 389

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 10(38)Section 112ASection 131(1A)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 159

Issues it is cited on

section 159legal representativesection 292bsection 292section 29section 131section 153cnotice under section 148section 153section 15section 13section 148

Judgments citing Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO

Anil Bansilal Lodha, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik - 1, Nashik

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

ITA 953/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10(38)Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.953/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Manjusha Anil Lodha, PCIT, Nashik-1 L/H of Late Anil Bansilal Lodha, Vs. Mangal Bhavan, Opp Swami Vivekanand School, Panchvati, Nashik – 422 003 Maharashtra PAN : AAGPL1981M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the inst…

DCIT-Central Charge-8(3), Mumbai vs. Estate of Late Shri Ramniklal Rajmal Mehta- Executor Shri Dilip Ramniklal Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 4220/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah & Shri P P BhandariFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No. 4220/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT Central Charge 8(3), Estate of Late Ramniklal Rajmal Mumbai Mehta- Executor Shri Dilip Vs. Ramniklal Mehta, 1608/1609 Prasad Chambers, Charni Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004. PAN AAHPM1917B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan Shah & Shri P P Bhandari Revenue By : Smt Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR) Date of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 ORDER Per Justice (Retd.) C V…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 250Section 68

…ived the requirements of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the validity of notice u/s. 148 then cannot be challenged. 14. This position was again reiterated in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja vs. ITO vide judgment dated 27.08.2019 reported in [2020] 420 ITR 226 and again in the case of Durlabhai Kanubhai Rajpara vs. ITO vide judgment dated 26.03.2019 reported in [2020] 424 ITR 428. 15. As is evident from the above, the proposition of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court vis-à-vis the issue of validity of proceedings where the jurisdictional notice for reopening cases, u/s. 148 of the Act, is i…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastruture (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. No.9 Ali Askar Road JCIT (OSD) Off. Cunningham Road Vs. Central Range Bangalore 560 052 Bangalore PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Counsel Respondent by : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.09.2…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. No.9 Ali Askar Road JCIT (OSD) Off. Cunningham Road Vs. Central Range Bangalore 560 052 Bangalore PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Counsel Respondent by : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.09.2…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. No.9 Ali Askar Road ACIT Off. Cunningham Road Vs. Central Circle-1(2) Bangalore 560 052 Bengaluru PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Counsel Respondent by : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.09.2…

Late Smt Sushila Bisarya, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

ITA 89/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Late Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. CIT-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AEWPB 2587 D Assessee by Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 28.02.2020 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Ta…

Mrs. Hetal Patel L/H of Late Mr. Dharmesh Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1632/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1632/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2010-11 Hetal Patel, The Income Tax L/H Late Mr Dharmesh Y Patel, Vs. Officer, 21A Bhavanipura Society, Ward-4(2)(1), Nizampura, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390007. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hri Jayantilal kalidas Shah vs. ITO –ITA 990/Ahd/2019 Savita Kapila vs. ACIT – 426 ITR 502 (Del.) Bhavnaben S. Patel LH of Late Sanmukhbhai Patel SCA 20437 of 2018 Alamelu Verrapn vs.ITO – (2018) 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) Urmilaben Anurudhsinhji Jadeja vs. ITO – 420 ITR 226 (Gujarat) PCIT vs. maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) Chandresh Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO – (2019) 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that there was no information available with the department about the demise of the assessee. Thus, in the absence of any information, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of th…

Jayantilal Hirabhai Patal, Surat vs. ITO (International Taxation), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2 of the appeal raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 771/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dipikaben J. Patel, I.T.O.(International (Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Jayantilal H Patel), Taxation), Vs. 19/B, Suryadarshan Society-2, Pragati Surat. Villa, Segvi Road, Valsad-396001. Pan No. Arypp 2776 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Dipikaben J. Patel, I.T.O.(International (Legal heir of Late Mr. Jayantilal H Patel), Taxation), Vs. 19/B, Suryadarshan Society-2, Pragati Surat. Villa, Segvi Road, Valsad-396001. PAN No. ARYPP 2776 P Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Suresh K Kabra, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal b…

Late Shri Jayantilal Kalidas Shah. L/H Shri Japan N Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedbad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 990/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reopening notice under Section 148 issued to a dead person could be continued against legal representatives. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhsinhji Jadeja vs. ITO, reported in 420 ITR 226 (Gujarat), PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) and Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO, reported in (2019) 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat). The ratio laid down in the order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamela Veerappan vs. ITO, reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72 (Mad.) has a…

Abdulvahed A. Sheikh, Legal Heirof Late Smt. Sarifaben Bikhubhai Shek, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2948/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R
Section 120(3)(a)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 282Section 54F

…ved the requirements of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the validity of notice u/s. 148 then cannot be challenged. 14. This position was again reiterated in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja vs. ITO vide judgment dated 27.08.2019 reported in [2020] 420 ITR 226 and again in the case of Durlabhai Kanubhai Rajpara vs. ITO vide judgment dated 26.03.2019 reported in [2020] 424 ITR 428. 15. As is evident from the above, the proposition of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court vis-à-vis the issue of validity of proceedings where the I.T.A No. 2948/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 15 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh…