RAJPAL BANSAL,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

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). 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 approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied……..”. 4. 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. 3 | P a g e