Mukesh Devi Through L/H Vinod Singh vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 15.10.2024 passed in case no. NFAC/2011-12/10054507, involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

The assessee’s identical delay of 278 days in the case is hereby, condoned as per its averments explaining reasons therein to circumstances beyond control which have gone un-resulted from the revenue side.

It next emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer appears to have issued section 148 notice to the assessee thereby initiating the impugned proceedings in her name despite the fact the she appears to have left further heavenly aboard very well before that. The Revenue vehemently argues that it was appellant’s bounden duty to inform the Assessing Officer of the assessee’s demise which has no effect on validity of the impugned proceedings.

That being the case, I find no merit to the Revenue’s foregoing stand in light of Savita Kapila Vs ACIT (2020) 118 Taxmann.com 46 (Del.) deciding the very issue in the appellant’s favour and against the department that such a reopening initiated in the name of dead person is a nullity. Quashed accordingly.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed.