BRIJ VEER SINGH ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD 1 (2) , NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5866/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 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 the precedent set in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd.

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 by the prescribed authority for the reopening proposal.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to a flawed approval from the prescribed authority for reopening.

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: Adv. Sh. Tarun Aswani, Adv
Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5866/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brij Veer Singh, B-15, Sector-12, Ward-1(2), Noida- 201301 Noida Uttar Pradesh PAN: AIRPS0432P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. B.K. Manjani, Adv. Sh. Tarun Aswani, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), Delhi’s DIN & order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088528924(1), dated 20.04.2026, 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

ITA No.5866/Del/2026

reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval 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 9th July, 2026. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21.07.2026 Pooja Mittal/- 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 →