BSL SPECIAL AND SECURITY SERVICES,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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 reopening proceedings initiated against a dissolved partnership firm are not sustainable in law. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, had been dissolved on January 15, 2008. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148 by issuing a notice on March 28, 2019, after the firm's dissolution.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated against a dissolved partnership firm.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
आदेश / ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre,, New Delhi’s, DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086345665(1) dated 22.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Delay of 8 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) in the larger interest of justice. 3. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that there arises the first and foremost issue
ITA 5226/DEL/2026 BSL SPECIAL AND SECURITY SERVICES
of validity of the impugned reopening itself. The learned Assessing Officer had admittedly set into motion section 148 proceedings against the assessee vide notice dated 28.03.2019. There is further no quarrel even going by the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion at page 11 that the assessee a partnership firm herein, stood dissolved very much well before that on 15.01.2008, which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. 4. Faced with this situation, the tribunal is of the considered view that such a reopening initiated in the name of dissolved partnership firm is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stands quashed in very terms. 5. All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 6. The assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026.
Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th July, 2026. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ
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 →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026