AANCHAL IMPEX PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9089/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 March 2026AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)2 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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 11.03.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

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.

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 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.

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →