Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2010-11, arising from proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening itself.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing the precedent of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid when the approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction?
Sections Cited
147, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Hari Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 35, Village-Shri Nagar, Ward-1(3), Tehsil-Hodal, Palwal, Aurangabad, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121105 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJAPC7009C Assessee by: Sh. Pawan Garg, CA & Ms. Uma Upadhyaya, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076835329(1) dated 09.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s. 151 of the Act. The tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 28.03.2017 (page 5 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Hari Chand Officer’s reopening proposal as “I am satisfied………”. This being the clinching factual position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.