ANCHI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2(4), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening by the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. Therefore, the reopening itself was vitiated and quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arose against an order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening initiated by the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment is valid when the approval granted by the prescribed authority is mechanical and lacks proper application of mind?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.340 citing453 ITR 242 · 2015 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s Anchi Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o 310, D Ostwal & Associates, Ward-2(4), F-14, Competent House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCA1119L Assessee by: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/107676009(1) dated 29.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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 22.03.2017 (page 33 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Anchi Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 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.
More judgments on Section 151
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026