SUDESH PAL,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3710/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2012-20132 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 prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling on similar grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to the assessment year 2012-13, challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment. The primary contention was the inadequacy of the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for the reopening proposal.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a flawed approval process by the prescribed authority. The court examined whether the approval demonstrated an independent application of mind.

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

Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 01.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3710/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sudesh Pal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o- Sanjeev Anand & Ward-2(2)(3), Associates, 136, Hapur, Ghaziabad Navyug Market, Ghaziabad PAN: CJXPP9441A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 01.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 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/250/2025-26/1087595591(1), dated 19.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 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.3710/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 1st June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th June, 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 →