Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals by the assessee arose from the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12. The primary contention was the validity of the reopening due to lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and did not constitute a valid approval as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the approval from the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 271(1)(c), 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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Manoj Singhal, Vs DCIT, A-1/112, 2nd Floor, Safdarjung Central Circle-1, Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Noida, Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABTPS2635P : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Manoj Singhal, Vs CIT(A)-3, A-1/112, 2nd Floor, Safdarjung 2nd Floor, ARTO Complex, Enclave, New Delhi-110029 Sector-33, Noida, Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABTPS2635P Assessee by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals & 5817/Del/2024, for Assessment Year 2011-12, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1066969325(1) and ITBA/PNL/M/271(1)(c)/2024- 25/1070299125(1) dated 23.07.2024 and 12.11.2024, in
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground in his “quantum” appeal pressed during the course of hearing, we find that the 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 31.03.2018 (page 48 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “yes it is a fit case………”. 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.
3.1 All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.