MITHLA YADAV L/H OF LATE GYAN SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 3(1), GWALIOR

Appeal stand dismissed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 412/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Smt. Mithla Yadav Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ (L/H Of Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav) Ward 3(1), Gwalior. 67, Kaulonipura, Vs. Preetam Singh Ghas Mandi, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afbpy-6128-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Appellant Herein Smt. Mithla Yadav Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against An Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 21-06-2023 Confirming Assessment Order Dated 19-11-2018 As Passed By Ld. Ao Assessing Total Income Of Rs.107.01 Lacs. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 31 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing By Revenue That The Appellant Smt. Mithla Yadav Has Claimed Herself To Be The Legal Representative Of The Deceased Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav Who Is Stated To Have Left For His Heavenly Abode. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submits That Neither She Has Proved Herself As The Legal Representative As Per Section 2(29) Of Income Tax Act R.W.S 2(11) Of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Nor

1. The appellant herein Smt. Mithla Yadav has filed the instant appeal against an order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 21-06-2023 confirming assessment order dated 19-11-2018 as passed by Ld. AO assessing total income of Rs.107.01 Lacs. The registry has noted delay of 31 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. It emerges during

KARAN KANT JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), ETAH

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

delay of 288 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, raised a pertinent legal ground and stated that the reopening approval was given in a mechanical manner and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. For the same, Ld. AR ahs referred to various judicial decisions, the copies of which have