BHAWANA SHARMA,GURUGRAM vs. ITO WARD 1(3) GURGAON, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 184/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: 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 mechanical and not based on the specific facts of the case, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. This mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2016-17, which arose from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessment itself.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 10.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084222412(1) dated 30.12.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.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 28.03.2023 (placed on case file) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “as per the recommendations of Bhawana Sharma the CCIT and Pr. CIT, in the case.........”. 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →