DEEPAK SOLANKI,GURGAON vs. WARD 1(4) GURGAON, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2480/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 July 2026AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind, citing a Supreme Court decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147. A key issue was the validity of the approval for reopening obtained by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings due to a flawed approval process by the prescribed authority.

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

For Appellant: CA Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv
Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2480/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Solanki, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o- CA R.S. Poonia, Ward-1(4), D-82-B, Siwad Area, Gurgaon, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Haryana Jaipur, Rajasthan PAN: AVOPS2009L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. R.S. Poonia, CA Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2025-26/1084608779(1), dated 09.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 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

ITA No.2480/Del/2026

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 28.03.2021 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon (page 7 of the paper-book). 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. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

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 →