NIDHI SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7419/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2013-143 pages
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 2013-14 was filed against an order involving proceedings under section 147/144 of the Income-tax Act. There was a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment. Specifically, whether the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 was valid.

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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2026-27/1089269525(1), dated 29.05.2026

ITA No. 7419/Del/2026

involving proceedings under section 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 70 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 our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 28.03.2018 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

ITA No. 7419/Del/2026

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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25/08/2026. Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →