USHA MUNJAL,SHAMLI vs. ITO WARD-1(5), SHAMLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3203/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 July 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 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 a mechanical approval for reopening, as seen in this case, vitiates the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed based on the invalidity of the approval under Section 151 of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was validly approved by the prescribed authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 23.07.2025Pronounced: 23.07.2025

Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Usha Munjal (Individual), Vs Income Tax Officer, Near Jaikisan Udyog, Water Works Ward-1(5), Colony, Shamli, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-247776 Uttar Pradesh-2247776 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADFPM6930K Assessee by: Sh. Rohit Chhabra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074712018(1) dated 19.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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 27.03.2019 wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes I am satisfied………”. This being the clinching Usha Munjal 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.

4.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →