MANJU AGARWAL,KISHORE GARDEN , PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4423/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2025AY 2011-122 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 was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment for want of a valid approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,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 SMC, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 09.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Manju Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 38, Assandh Road, Kishore Garden, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABEPA3084D Assessee by: Sh. Nitin Kanwar, Sh. Shivam Jain & Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Advs. Revenue by : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 09.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067455067(1) dated 08.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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 (page 159 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s Manju Agarwal reopening proposal as “Yes, I am satisfied………”. 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.

4.

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 →