Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order related to Assessment Year 2013-14, which arose from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process. The decision cited was CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC). Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of the assessment was valid due to a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Kapil Khanna, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Kapil Goel, Adv., Ward-6(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKPK8081D Assessee by: Sh. Sandeep Goyal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.07.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073589907(1) dated 22.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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 dated 30.03.2021 (page 16 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Kapil Khanna Officer’s reopening proposal as “Having gone through the reasons recorded by the AO…..………”. 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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.