VINITA AGGARWAL,. vs. ITO WARD 61(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3151/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2015-163 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 reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The primary reason for this decision was the finding that the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151(2) to the Assessing Officer's proposal for reopening was mechanical and common to eleven cases. This fact, as stated by the Tribunal, went unrebutted by the department. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the assessment. Consequently, all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Vinita Aggarwal, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal challenged proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 133 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal in light of the decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The core of the assessee's argument revolved around the validity of the reopening itself.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid, given that the approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151(2) was mechanical and common to eleven cases? Assessee's contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the impugned reopening is invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151(2) was a mere mechanical and common approval for eleven cases, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. The assessee relied on the decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the department did not rebut the assessee's contention regarding the mechanical approval by the competent authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv
Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

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.

2.

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).

3.

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””.

4.

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.

5.

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 →