MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026
For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250
notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was also not issued to any of the legal representatives as per the provision contained in Section 159(2)(b) of the Act. Further, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT ... which the estate is capable of meeting the liability.”
9.2
On going through the above provisions, we take note of the fact that section 159(2) of the Act makes a specific reference to assessment/reassessment proceedings under the Act. While section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks