BHAVYA FOREX DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5255/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the prescribed authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed against the CIT(A)'s order. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to a flawed approval under Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Hemant Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5255/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhavya Forex Dealers Pvt. Vs. DC/ACIT, Ltd., Central Circle-2, H. No. 2211, Second Floor, Faridabad Sector-9, Faridabad PAN: AAECB4622L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sandeep Goel, Adv. Sh. Hemant Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s order dated 23.12.2025, passed in case no. CIT(A), Gurgaon-3/10208/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Delay of 70 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

ITA No.5255/Del/2026

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which goes to the root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 30.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. 4. Thus, I am of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 2 | P a g e

ITA No.5255/Del/2026

5.

DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →