Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Vinita Aggarwal, C/o-H-35, First Floor, Ward-61(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi New Delhi PAN: ADRPA8136H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069267307(1), dated 30.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 133 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which goes to the root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151(2) approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “On careful perusal of information received……….the case from sl. No. 1 to 11 as listed in the annexure enclosed are hereby approved for actions u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961””.
Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical and common approval of the said prescribed authority in eleven cases. We make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. We thus quote CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the assessment. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.