Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
MS. MADHUMITA ROY, J, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACJ
Late Shri Satish Mehta – Appellant
Versus
The I.T.O L/H Shri Kapil Mehta Ward – 34(4) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invalid jurisdiction on deceased assessments. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 2. court affirms legal representative's necessity. (Para 3 , 7 , 9 , 12) |
| 3. arguments focused on notice validity. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. final ruling to quash assessment. (Para 14) |
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 06.08.2024 for A.Y 2017-18.
2. The assessee has raised six substantive grounds of appeal. Vide Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction and further erred in framing assessment on a dead person. Vide the other grounds, the assessee has challenged the disallowances made in the assessment order.
3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
4. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that Shri Satish Mehta died on 10.11.2016. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that assessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s143(2) dated 07.09.2018 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] in the name of dead assessee, Satish Mehta. Even the notice u/s.142(1) Dtd.05.08
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
