ARVIND KUMAR BAHL,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2749/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 September 2026AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable. This was because the Assessing Officer did not make any addition to the income based on the specific reason for reopening, rendering the entire reopening invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned assessment year 2014-15, challenging the reopening of assessment. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on an investment in an "NSEL" exchange platform.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the absence of any consequential addition by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

1 2749/Del/2026 Arvind Kumar Bahl

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member

ITA No.2749/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Vs CIT (Appeals) Arvind Kumar Bahl, A-105, Sushant Lok, Sector- National Faceless 28, Gurgaon Appeal Centre (NFAC)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAFPB7252C

Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 02.09.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the NFAC, Delhi DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083697079(1) dated 15.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 17 days in filing of instant appeal is

2 2749/Del/2026 Arvind Kumar Bahl

hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It transpires with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that the first and foremost issue of validity of impugned reopening itself. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer appears set into motion section 148 proceedings against the assessee regarding his “NSEL” exchange platform investment of Rs.23,99,890/- whereas his assessment framed on 28.03.2022 inter-alia added “gross-margin” of Rs. 1,49,156/- and profit of Rs.97,830/-; respectively. This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side.

4.

That being the case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that such reopening itself is not sustainable as the learned Assessing Officer has not made any addition qua the aforesaid sole reopening reason. Quashed accordingly.

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

3 2749/Del/2026 Arvind Kumar Bahl

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/09/2026.

Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 16/09/2026 *NEHA, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →