Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a mechanically obtained approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act?
Sections Cited
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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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
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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.