DCIT, DELHI vs. ALAKA MARS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 8517/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2021-2220 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the notice was issued by an officer who lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. This instruction dictates which officer can handle cases based on the income declared.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2021-22. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by the ACIT, Circle-1, Delhi, via a section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the Assessing Officer had the proper pecuniary jurisdiction to issue the notice for reopening the assessment, based on the income declared by the assessee and the guidelines provided by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Pronounced: 21.01.2026

This Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi's order dated 07.08.2025 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-29 10135/2020-21, 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 17 days in filing of the Revenue'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).

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself set into motion by the learned A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →