Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 05 ITAT CK 3440

Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal vs ACIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 20 May 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member · Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
ITA Nos.8497 & 8498/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 371 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.8497 & 8498/Del/2025 for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 07.05.2024 having DINs and orders no. CIT(A), Delhi-29 10392/2013-14 and 10562/2014-15, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delays of 504 days in filing of both the instant appeals are condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the appellant herein Mr. Archit Jindal claims himself to be the “legal representative” of the assessee Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who is stated to have left for his heavenly abode on 12.04.2025. Faced with this situation, we note that there is no even an iota of indication in the appellant’s submissions that either he has succeeded to the estate of the deceased or he is managing the same or as an intermeddler thereof; as the case may be, as per section 2(29) of the Act r.w.s. 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defining such a “legal representative” in very terms. There is further no material on record that the appellant herein has been proceeded against by the department under section 159 of the Act.

3.

That being the case, we find no merit in the appellant’s claim as “legal representative” of the deceased assessee and reject his instant appeals at this stage in very terms, subject to a rider that he shall be at liberty to file a fresh appeal as and when he either satisfies the statutory conditions of a “legal representative” under section 2(11) (supra) or he is proceeded against by the department under section 159 of the Act, whichever is earlier. Ordered accordingly.

4.

These assessee/appellant’s twin appeals ITA Nos.8497 & 8498/Del/2025 are dismissed as premature at this stage in above terms subject to all just exceptions. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.