MUKUL AGARWAL,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD-2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1088/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2009-103 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. The primary issue considered was the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which was deemed to go to the root of the matter. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel pointed out that the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 to the Assessing Officer's reopening proposal was a mechanical "yes, it is a fit case". Crucially, this fact of mechanical approval by the competent authority remained unrebutted by the department. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Mukul Agarwal, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 against the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Ghaziabad. This order was passed in proceedings under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was heard on 14.05.2025 and pronounced on the same day. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the reopening of assessment initiated by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid when the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act is mechanical? Assessee's contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the impugned reopening is invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act was a mere mechanical endorsement of "yes, it is a fit case". This fact, according to the assessee, went unrebutted by the department. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the department regarding the validity of the reopening or the nature of the approval granted by the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA
Hearing: 14.05.2025Pronounced: 14.05.2025

Date of hearing 14.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 14.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Ghaziabad’s order dated 18.01.2019 passed in case no. 819315031220617, dated 18.01.2019, involving proceedings under section 144/147 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 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 “yes, it is a fit case”.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →