Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arose against an order passed in proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening itself.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction from the prescribed authority, making the reopening invalid. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid without a proper and non-mechanical approval from the prescribed authority as per Section 151.
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
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Pintu Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Gali No. 1, Master Colony, Meerut Road Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad-201002 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMNPT1825B Assessee by: Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prashar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072004373(1) dated 08.01.2025, 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 26.03.2018 (page 2 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Pintu Tyagi Officer’s 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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.