MANISH JAIN,HARYANA vs. DC/ACIT, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8939/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2026AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2012-13 and 2019-20, which involved proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. The primary issue raised 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 non-application of independent mind by the prescribed authority while granting approval under Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151,Section 153A

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 Appellant: CA Sh. Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv
Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

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. 8938 & 8939/Del/2025; Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2019-20

Manish Jain Vs Deputy 1247-48, HUDA, Phase-II, Sector- Commissioner/Assistant 17/L2, Commissioner of Income Panipat- 132103, Tax, Haryana Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Part-2, Karnal- 132001, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACBPJ7121N Assessee by: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA Sh. Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14.07.2026

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2012-13 & 2019- 20, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s orders dated 23.10.2025, passed in order Nos. 10206/2019-20 & 10685/2018-19, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 & 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files 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 our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon.

3.

Thus, we 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.

These assessee’s twin appeals are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →