ANAND TYAGI,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 385/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the validity of the reopening itself was in question due to a lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151. The approval provided was examined.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arises from an order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. A key issue raised is the validity of the reopening proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the validity of the reopening of assessment proceedings due to the alleged lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 29.05.2025Pronounced: 29.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Anand Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 112, Kharkhauda, Moh. Tihai, Ward-1(1), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-245206 Meerut (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AETPT7053B Assessee by: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, 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 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070690108(1) dated 27.11.2024, in proceedings u/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 22.03.2019 (page 116 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes, I am satisfied………”. This Anand Tyagi 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 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →