LAKSHYA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1579/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2018-194 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 approval for issuing notices under Section 148A and 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the specified authority (Pr. Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General), as required for reopening after three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT pertains to AY 2018-19, challenging additions made under Sections 68, 37(1), and 69. The assessee argued that the reopening proceedings were vitiated due to improper approval for the notice issued under Section 148A and 148.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the reopening of assessment was valid, specifically concerning the authority that granted approval for the issuance of notices under Section 148A and 148 after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 37(1),Section 69,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

For Appellant: CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1579/Del/2026 Lakshya Impex Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1579/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Lakshya Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-15 22, Ashoka Chambers, E-2, ARA Centre Pusa Road, Rajendra Park Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi – 110060 Delhi – 110055 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAACL7466J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Amit Goel CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Bal Krishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-26 Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084248496(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1579/Del/2026 Lakshya Impex Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, CC- 15, New Delhi, for AY: 2018-19.

2.

Heard and perused the record the impugned assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act making additions on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 on account of disallowance of interest paid u/s 37(1) and on account of unexplained expenses u/s 69. The assessee’s appeal has been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for which assesse is in appeal before this Tribunal and at the time of hearing ld. Counsel has submitted that the reopening proceedings are vitiated as the notice issued u/s 148A followed by notice issued u/s 148 dated 17.03.2022 and 07.04.2022 copy of which are available at page No. 2 & 1 of the paper book respectively have been granted by PCIT, Central, Delhi-2, while it should have been granted by specified authority which was Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.

3.

Ld. DR has argued that assesse had failed to appear before ld. CIT(A) and raised this claim. It was submitted that however, we find that though assesse had failed to appear in consequence to the notices ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of facts available on record. However, ld. CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of the legal grounds No.1 to 4 by which similar plea of questioning the issuance of

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1579/Del/2026 Lakshya Impex Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) notice u/s 148 of the Act was raised. Thus, non-appearance of the assesse before ld. First Appellate Authority is of no consequence and assesse can very well plead that impugned orders of ld. Tax authorities below are vitiated.

4.

Now coming to the facts of the case we find that the year involved is AY: 2018-19 and at page No. 224 copies of notices issued u/s 148A(B) and 148 are provided and the same shows approval has been granted by PCIT, Central-2, Delhi. It is settled that notice issued after elapsing of the 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year require approval of specified authority under sub-clause (ii) of Section 151 and that happens to be Pr. Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) SCC Online (SC) 2693. That being the state of affairs the corresponding grounds deserves to be allowed. The impugned assessment orders is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1579/Del/2026 Lakshya Impex Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19)

Dated 30.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →