Shaikh Abdul Kadar v. ITO

34 ITR 451High Court1958#14051 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 148personnfac

Judgments citing Shaikh Abdul Kadar v. ITO

Sh. Virbhadra Singh Through L/H Smt. Pratibha Singh, Shimla vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 148/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 148/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Virbhadra Singh, Vs. The Dcit, Circle Through Legal Heir बनाम Shimla Smt. Pratibha Singh Of Late Shri Virbhadra Singh, Holly Lodge, Jakhoo, Shimla-171001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Alrps 6513N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 151(1)

…oid ab initio since, it was already, in the knowledge of the department that Sh. Virbhadra Singh had died on 08.07.2021 2. The order as passed in the name of dead person is Void ab-initio in view of following case laws :- i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court) ii) CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) iii) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All.)" 4. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC was in the name of deceased / dead person, therefore, it is bad in law and void ab initio. He has…

Ankur Chabra Legal Heir Late Sh. Rajesh Chabra Prop. Ms Roshan Lal and Sons Moti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 271A

…ed as the representative of deceased on 15.09.2018. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as ld. PCIT in the name of the dead person is void abi-nitio. We find support from the following judgements: i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court) ii) CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) iii) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All).” 6. We have also considered the various judicial pronouncements and orders brought on record by the ld. counsel of the Assessee and we are of this considered view that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed by…

Late Sh. Rajesh Chabra Legal Heir Ankur Chhabra, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3) Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 22/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 22/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shri Rajesh Chabra, Vs. Ito 1(3), Legal Heir Ankur Chhabra, बनाम Ludhiana Prop. M/S Roshan Lal & Sons, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana 141009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupc1499D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Sराज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit , Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT , Sr.DR
Section 148

…d as the representative of deceased on 15.09.2018. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as ld. PCIT in the name of the dead person is void abi-nitio. We find support from the following judgements: i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court) 22-Chd-2024 – Late Shri Rajesh Chabra L/h Ankur Chhabra, Ludhiana 5 ii) CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All).” iii) 6. We have also considered the various judicial pronouncements and orders brought on record by the ld. counsel of the Assessee and we are of t…

Amrit Paul Goyal Through Legal Heir Neelam Goyal, Mansa vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 263

…, Smt. Neelam Goyal had been approved as the representative of deceased, Sh. Amrit Paul Goyal on 15.09.2018 thus, the order as passed by the Ld. PCIT in the name of dead person void abinitio as per the following judgments : i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court) ii) CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) iii) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All).” The facts of the case are that as per Death Certificate 6. on record, the assessee expired on 12.07.2018 after the passing of the ld. PCIT (Central) Ludhiana’s order dated 31.03.2023. The present appeal was fil…

Late Shri Motilal Hastimalji Bothra Through His L/H Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…arly mentioned the name of legal heir i.e. wife of assessee Mrs. Bhanwari Devi and, thus, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the name of deceased person deserves to be quashed in view of various judgements as under:- i). Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court); ii). CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (Allahabad High Court); iii). CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All). 2. Notwithstanding the above said facts, it is submitted that no notice of hearing was received by the Legal heir due to deactivation of PAN of the assessee and, as such, no notice was even served throug…

The DCIT-2(1), Indore vs. Retd. Capt. Vikram Singh (Executor of the Will of Late Smt. Laxmi Kumari), Indore

ITA 450/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, A.RFor Respondent: 09/06/2022
Section 24B(2)Section 34

…ram Singh] A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - assessee, a letter was filed by the AR on 19.08.2014 and requested the AO to drop the proceedings and following case laws were also quoted: 1. ITO vs. Ramprasad & Ors. (1972) 86 ITR 145 (SC); 2. Shaikh Abdul Kadar vs. ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP); 3. CIT vs. Kumari Prabhavati Gupta & Ors. (1998) 231 ITR 188 (MP); 4. CIT Vs. Fatehlal (1996) 118 ITR 218 (MP); 5. CIT Vs. Amarchand & Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); 6. CIT Vs. Dalumal Shyamumal (2005) 276 ITR 62 (MP); 7. RC Jain (Deed.) Vs. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 384 (Del.); 8. CIT Vs. Motiram (Deed.) Through LH Dharampal 316 ITR 321 (P&H); 9. R…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Sh. Ram Kumar, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 255(4)

….2. Apart from that reliance is also placed upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar L/H of Late Mohar Singh 313 ITR 305 (P&H); 2. Mrs. Veena Vij vs ITO in ITA No.1299/Del/2012 (ITAT/Delhi); 3. Shaikh Abdul Kadar vs ITO reported at 34 ITR 451 (MP.); 4. ITO vs Ganga Prasad Jaiswal reported at 39 ITD 444 (All.); 5. Smt. Kesar Devi vs CIT reported at 321 ITR 344 (Raj.) I.T.A .No.-1632/Del/2016 ITO vs Ram Kumar Page 3 of 3 4.3. Considering the above legal and factual position, the assessment order was held to be void ab initio. 5. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tr…