MAYANK PURI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-29(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1523/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 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 reopening of assessment was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 against an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal arose from proceedings initiated by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority.

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. &, Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA
Hearing: 29.05.2025Pronounced: 29.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Mayank Puri, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-1368, Second Floor, Green Field Ward-29(5), Colony, Sector-43, Faridabad, New Delhi-110001 Haryana-121010 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. APZPP9085J Assessee by: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073358796(1) dated 17.02.2025, 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 24.03.2018 (page 3 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Mayank Puri Officer’s reopening proposal as “I have gone through………”. 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/05/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →