Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the approval granted by the prescribed authority was in accordance with the law.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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:
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.