VIJAY GARG,MEERUT V. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

ITA 2303/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal heir of Vijay Garg against the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Meerut, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. The primary contention was that the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued in the name of Vijay Garg, who had already passed away, and not in the name of his legal heirs. The tribunal noted that the NFAC had not adequately addressed the issue of the notice being issued in the name of a deceased person and had only considered the late filing of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793335 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: M.P. RASTOGI
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2303/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Garg, 96, Raju Ki Kuiya, Near Lala Ka Bazar, Meerut – 250 002. PAN: AJZPG0246Q Vs ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.02.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10164051 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward- 1(2)(4), Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2303/Del/2025 2 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021 in the name of Vijay Garg, the assessee, now represented by Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Legal Heir, who has filed the appeal. The case of assessee is that Shri Vijay Garg died on 10.10.2012, i.e., well before the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment so framed in the name of the deceased Vijay Garg is vitiated and has to be considered as non est in law. Admittedly, the notice was issued in the name of the deceased only and not in the name of any legal heir. It comes up that when this reassessment order was challenged before the ld.CIT(A), the NFAC had merely examined the issue of late filing of the appeal. 3. On consideration of the impugned order, we find that the fact of death of the assessee was brought to the knowledge in the statement of facts filed in Form 35. However, the NFAC has considered the fact of deposit of cash in the bank post demise of the assessee and, thus, did not accept the plea of lack of knowledge of the LRs about the assessment proceedings. The ld. AR has submitted that Shri Vijay Garg had died and the business he was carrying on was run thereafter by some other persons to whom the business was assigned. However, the name of Vijay Garg continued to be the in the bank account. 4. In any case, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings of reassessment were all in the name of the deceased person which vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2303/Del/2025 3 passing of the impugned assessment order. The NFAC has failed to consider the facts in correct perspective while denying to condone the delay. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the grounds are sustained. The appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. However, liberty rests with the AO to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh as per law in regard to any escapement of income to his knowledge. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24th September, 2025. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "