SUDESH KUMAR YADAV,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4965/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 July 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.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed with a delay of 61 days. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to a non-application of mind by the prescribed authority while granting approval for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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: 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.4965/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sudesh Kumar Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 128, Golf Course Ward-4(3), Road, Sector -43, Gurgaon Chakarpur (74), Gurgaon PAN: AAZPY7697N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vipul Gupta, 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 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 2, Lucknow’s order dated 31.12.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084268673(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.4965/Del/2026

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 61 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned 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 31.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “Approved………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon (page 10 of the paper-book). 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2026

2 | P a g e

ITA No.4965/Del/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

3 | 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 →