DIL RAJ KAUR,WAZIRPUR III WEST DELHI vs. ITO WARD 34(1), DELHI

ITA 7712/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2012-1311 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was made in violation of the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that approvals were obtained from both the Additional Commissioner (implied from the cited case) and the Principal Commissioner, which is not in consonance with the requirements of Section 151. Citing the decisions in Savita Gupta Vs. ITO and Ghanshyam K Khabrani, the Tribunal concluded that when a statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular authority, it must be done by that authority. The satisfaction of a superior officer cannot substitute the satisfaction of the designated authority. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for invalid assumption of jurisdiction due to invalid approval. The adjudication of other factual and legal grounds was rendered academic and left open. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on this technical ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dil Raj Kaur, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2012-13. The AO's order was dated December 6, 2016, and the NFAC's order was dated May 26, 2026. The assessee's primary challenge, raised in Ground No. 12, pertains to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 due to an allegedly mechanical approval granted under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal considered the proforma seeking approval under Section 151, which indicated approvals from both the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the approval obtained under Section 151 of the Act was granted by multiple authorities, which the assessee contends is mechanical and invalid. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was granted mechanically by multiple authorities, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 invalid. The assessee relies on the principle that the satisfaction of the designated authority is crucial for valid reopening. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded in the provided text. However, the judgment implies that the revenue likely contended that the approvals obtained were sufficient and in accordance with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 151,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 54,Section 150(1),Section 150(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH

The appeal in ITA No.7712/Del/2026 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the 1. order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 26.05.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 06.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

The Ground No. 12 raised by the assessee is challengi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →