AJAY KUMAR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI CHANDRAPAL ,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO,WARD-3(1), BULANDSHAHR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
These assessee’s twin appeals
ITA
Nos.
1907
&
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’).
Assessee by Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv.
Sh. Sanjay Prashar, Adv.
Department by Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
05.06.2025
Date of pronouncement
05.06.2025
ITA Nos.1907 & 1908/Del/2025
2 | P a g e
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. Coming to the assessee’s quantum appeal
ITA
No.1907/Del/2025, 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.
ITA Nos.1907 & 1908/Del/2025
3 | P a g e
So far as the assessee’s second appeal ITA No. 1908/Del/2025 is concerned, the impugned consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has got no legs to stand since the assessment has already been quashed in the former appeal ITA Nos. 1907/Del/2025. The same also follows the suit therefore. Deleted accordingly. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. 6. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 1907 & 1908/Del/2025 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 5th June, 2025. RK/-