KULDHER SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 5, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5392/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 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 held that the reopening was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147. The primary issue was the approval granted for reopening by the prescribed authority.

What were the issues?

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

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. & Sh
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 5392/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Kuldher Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/o Natha Singh, Village Ward-5, Khalsa, Karnal PO Pathera, Tec. Indri Distt. Karnal, Haryana PAN: ASDPS7914E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2026

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/250/2025-26/1087906874(1), dated 25.3.2026 involving proceedings under section 147/144 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 itself which goes to the root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited any attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval

dated 25.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “….I am satisfied…..” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. 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 8th July, 2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22nd July, 2026. SR BHATNAGAR 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 →