Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening itself.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority under section 151, which was not rebutted by the department. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment.
Key Issues
Validity of reopening of assessment due to mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 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/250/2024-25/1065600605(1), dated 12.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 507 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal, is condoned in larger interest of justice and 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 approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied……..”.
Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority. I make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. I 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. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2025