RAJESH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 755/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 September 2026AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.755/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-4, Naraina Vihar, Ward-62(2), New Delhi- 110 028 New Delhi PAN: AANPG5093Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sarthak Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082636589(1), dated 14.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.755/Del/2026

2.

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 assessee has invited our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 31.03.2014 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “In view of the reasons cited by AO issue of notice u/s 148 is approved” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. 3. We thus are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 8th September, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2 | P a g e

ITA No.755/Del/2026

2.

Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →