Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 against the order of the CIT(A)-31, New Delhi, which arose from proceedings under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. The reopening was therefore quashed.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 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 ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Singhal Fasteners Company Pvt. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ltd., 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Ward-23(4), Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACS1428H Assessee by : Sh. Abhishek Mathur, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08, arises against the CIT(A)-31, New Delhi’s in case No. 233/17- 18/58/15-16 dated 27.10.2020, in proceedings u/s 147/143(3) 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 07.03.2014 (page 144 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Singhal Fasteners Company Pvt. Ltd. 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.