MAMTA CHAUDHARY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5131/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 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 from 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 an appeal for AY 2012-13 against an order passed under section 143(3). There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the tribunal.

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 143(3),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 Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, 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.5131/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mamta Chaudhary, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 430, Sector-5, Ward-2(1)(3), Mohan Meakens Society, Ghiabad Vasundhara, Ghaziabad - 201001 PAN: AHKPC3218R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Abhishek Jain, CA Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, 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)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 7, Mumbai’s order dated 25.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074997086(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.5131/Del/2026

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 334 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 14.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon (page -8 in 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.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5131/Del/2026

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

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →