SANGEETA JAIN ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59(3), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2699/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2012-132 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 found the reopening to be invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 challenged the reopening of assessment. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings initiated under section 147.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to a flawed approval process by the prescribed authority.

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

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Sakshi Rustgi, Adv
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2699/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sangeeta Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-8/16, Krishan Nagar, Ward-59(3), New Delhi - 110051 Delhi PAN: AKGPJ9057N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Rustgi, Adv. Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2025-26/1086043624(1), dated 16.02.2026 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. 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.2699/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 15.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon (page -57 in 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 7th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th 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 →