Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order arising from proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening, which was a mechanical acceptance of the Assessing Officer's proposal, vitiated the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
The core issue was the validity of the assessment reopening due to the lack of a proper and non-mechanical approval from the prescribed authority as required under section 151 of the Act.
Sections Cited
144, 151, 143(3)
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
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075223207(1) dated 29.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 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 13.03.2019 wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes I am satisfied………”. This being the clinching Sarwan Hazari Ahuja 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.