DEVASAN INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 7(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act, as it applied to cases where more than three years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the Revenue's contentions supporting the reopening were rejected.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arises from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2016-17. The primary issue is the validity of the reopening of assessment.
What were the issues?
Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 due to improper approval obtained from the Commissioner as per Section 151(ii).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 151,Section 151(i),Section 151(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal 2016-17 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 27.05.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076477012(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that first and foremost issue that arises for adjudication is validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had obtained approval dated 28.07.2022 from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-01, Delhi u/s 151(i) instead of the prescribed authority under sub Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) taxmann.com 70 (SC). It is made clear that the above section 151(ii) applies in a case if time period more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year elapses as are the facts herein.
That being the case, I hereby reject Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned reopening u/s 147. The assessee succeeds in its instant first and foremost legal ground/ argument in very terms.
All other grounds on merit stand rendered academic.
Order pronounced in open court on 20.08.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
