AJAY KUMAR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI CHANDRAPAL ,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO,WARD-3(1), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1907/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI 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 reopening was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority was mechanical and unrebutted by the department. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's twin appeals relate to assessment year 2009-10 and arise from orders passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning proceedings under sections 147, 144, and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority, which rendered the subsequent assessment and penalty invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Sanjay Prashar, Adv
Hearing: 05.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 1908/Del/2025 for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s separate orders, both dated 20.02.2025 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073489934(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1073491093(1) involving proceedings under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s quantum appeal , 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, it is a fit case…………”.

3.

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. It is made 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.

4.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →