ANITA BHATEJA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W 67(4), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6511/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 prescribed authority's approval under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, all other issues on merits became academic.

What were the facts?

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

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a mechanically obtained approval from the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),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

For Appellant: CA Sh. Siddarth Malhotra, Advocate
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

1 6511/Del/2026 Anita Bhataja

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member

ITA No.6511/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Vs ITO Anita Bhateja, WZ-256, Nangal Raya, Ward- 67(4) New Delhi-110046 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ALFPB4484K

Assessee by: Sh. Yogesh Harjai, CA Sh. Siddarth Malhotra, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 02.09.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Addl/ JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai order dated 28.10.2025, passed in case no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1082061125(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 6511/Del/2026 Anita Bhataja

2.

Delay of 161 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 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 assessee has invited my attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 25.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. 4. 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 6511/Del/2026 Anita Bhataja

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 →