MANOJ SINGHAL,DELHI vs. CIT A-3, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5817/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant 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 the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals for AY 2011-12 against orders arising from penalty proceedings and reopening. The appeals contest the validity of the reopening itself due to a flawed approval.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings due to a lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 5799/Del/2024
ITA No. 5817/Del/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

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.

4.

This assessee’s quantum appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →