RAJIV KUMAR KHANNA,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 09.11.2018 passed in case no.
152/17-18, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
3. 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
Assessee by Ms. Monika Aggarwal, Adv.
Sh. Jayant Bothra, CA
Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
26.05.2025
Date of pronouncement
26.05.2025
2 | P a g e reason that the learned counsel representing the assessee has invited our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151
approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied……..”.
4. 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. I make it 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 impugned assessment.
Ordered accordingly.
5. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 26th May, 2025. RK/-