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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1908/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2025AY 2009-103 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 of the assessment under section 147 of the Act was invalid. This was based on the finding that the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical, as evidenced by the endorsement "yes, it is a fit case…". The Tribunal noted that this crucial fact of mechanical approval went unrebutted by the department. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the assessment. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were rendered infructuous and deleted, as they were consequential to the assessment which had been quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Ajay Kumar (Legal Heir of Late Shri Chandrapal), filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 1907 & 1908/Del/2025) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for Assessment Year 2009-10. These appeals challenged separate orders dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The impugned orders pertained to proceedings under sections 147 (income escaping assessment) read with section 144 (best judgment assessment) and section 271(1)(c) (penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were heard on 05.06.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act was valid, given that the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the reopening was invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 was a mere mechanical endorsement of "yes, it is a fit case…" without proper application of mind. The assessee relied on the decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the department did not rebut the fact of the competent authority's mechanical approval.

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

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 →