PUSPHA DEVI,CHHATARI, BULANDSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 315/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 February 2026AY 2010-11Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 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 noted that the approval for reopening was granted by the prescribed authority in a mechanical manner, simply stating "Yes, I am satisfied". Citing the Supreme Court case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC), the tribunal held that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 arose against an order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur, concerning reassessment proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A key issue was the validity of the reopening, specifically whether there was a valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a mechanically granted approval by the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 11.02.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066140400(1) dated 27.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s. 151 of the Act. This tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 17.03.2017 (page 1 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes, I am satisfied.........”.

1.

Pushpa Devi This being the clinching factual position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, I accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.

4.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →