RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 251/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2026AY 2011-2012Bench: 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 lacked proper satisfaction. Citing the precedent of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC), the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arose against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a mechanically obtained approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act?

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

For Appellant: Ms. Manju Bala Yadav, Adv. &
Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 10.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10882895340(1) dated 21.11.2025, 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 26.03.2018 (page 4 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing

1.

Rakesh Sharma Officer’s reopening proposal as “I am satisfied.........”. 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 →