AJAY KAUSHIK,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- I(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 535/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant 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 was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. The mechanical approval vitiated the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning Assessment Year 2009-10, arising from proceedings under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the approval granted by the prescribed authority was in accordance with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,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 ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 21.05.2025Pronounced: 21.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Ajay Kaushik, Vs Income Tax Officer, RRA Taxindia, Ward-1(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHAPK1090R Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10, arises against the CIT(A), Faridabad’s in case No. 11127/2016- 17 dated 17.11.2017, in proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 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 31.03.2016 wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening Ajay Kaushik proposal as “I am satisfied………”. 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →