Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning proceedings under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear, and the case proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and not based on an independent application of mind. The decision relied on the precedent set in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the assessment reopening, specifically whether the approval under Section 151 was mechanical or application of independent mind by the prescribed authority.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 22.10.2019 passed in case no. 382/16-17, involving proceedings under section 147/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon.
We thus are 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.