MUKUL AGARWAL,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD-2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2009-10
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.
Assessee by Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA
Department by Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
14.05.2025
Date of pronouncement
14.05.2025
2 | P a g e
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”. 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 14th May, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 14th May, 2025. 3 | P a g e
RK/-