PINTU TYAGI,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1669/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 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 approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction from the prescribed authority, making the reopening invalid. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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

For Appellant: Adv. &
For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

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”).

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 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.

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 →