BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1 result for “reassessment”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi223Mumbai155Chennai134Bangalore88Jaipur81Ahmedabad69Kolkata29Rajkot28Raipur24Pune20Hyderabad19Jodhpur17Chandigarh15Amritsar15Patna12Visakhapatnam10Guwahati5Surat5Indore4Cuttack4Cochin3Nagpur3Lucknow3Allahabad2Panaji1Ranchi1Agra1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 1472

MARIA ESTIBEIRO,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)

reassessment of income of deceased assessee in the hands of legal heir/appellant sans compliance of section 159 of the Act is incurable u/s 292B/292BB of the Act, the assessment therefore deserves to be quashed. This proposition finds strength in the decision of ‘Maharaja Patiala Vs CIT’ [1943, 11 ITR 201