RAJESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 47(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3465/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 September 2026AY 2012-133 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 because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to a flawed approval process for reopening the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Addl/ JCIT(A)-4, Chennai order dated 14.01.2026 passed in case no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1084763583(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2 3465/Del/2026 Rajesh Kumar

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

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 my attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 30.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon.

3.

Thus, I am 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.

3 3465/Del/2026 Rajesh Kumar

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/09/2026.

Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated:14/09/2026 *NEHA, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →