Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre confirming an addition of Rs. 72,90,000.00 for unexplained cash. The assessee also sought to raise additional grounds challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the approval granted under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and arbitrary, lacking proper application of mind by the approving authority, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether the approval under Section 151 was granted with proper application of mind.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 69A, 151, 271AAC, 148
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, ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Date of Hearing 18.11.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, dated 05.07.2024 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.72,90,000.00 u/s 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash deposited in the bank
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly not given any relief in respect of penalty notice u/s 271AAC of the Act by the Assessing Officer.
During the course of hearing, the assessee filed an application for seeking permission to raise additional grounds of appeal, which are totally technical and legal in nature. The additionals ground of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:-
Additional Ground No. 1 That the impugned assessment so framed is bad in law and on facts, in as much as, the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act, and further completion of assessment under section 143(3)/ 147 of the Act was without satisfying the statutory pre- conditions as envisaged in aforesaid section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed, as such. Additional Ground No. 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case the approval accorded under section 151 of the Act is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without there being any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed.
4. In support of additional ground no.2, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that approval granted under section 151 of the Act is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without there being any application of mind and without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act. In support of her claim, the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a photocopy of the approval under section 151 dated 20.03.2013 for Assessment Year 2014-18. From this approval, it is acquired that the remarks given by the approving authority is past written as approved. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought on record many case laws on this issue passed by different authorities. Some of them are reproduced as under:-
Page 2 of 5 -The Hon'ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Goyanka Line & Chemical Ltd (2-15) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held that "Yes, I am Satisfied" cannot be held to be valid approval/sanction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017]391 ITR 11, while deciding an identical issue has held that section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT, who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice has to apply his mind and form an opinion. Mere appending of the expression 'approved' says nothing. It is not as if the commissioner has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up before him. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. When such exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking official, the finding of the Tribunal quashing the reassessment proceedings cannot be disturbed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) has held that where the commissioner had mechanically recorded permission and the important safeguards provided in the section 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the officer and the commissioner, the notice issued u/s 148 was held as invalid. The The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. S. Govanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) arising out of order of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP). "Section 151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Income escaping axsessment Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed Held, Yes (in favour of the Assessee)."
Per Contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the authorities below and we have also considered the details, paperbook/photo copy of the approval letter given by the authority concern for reopening of the case. We find that the ld. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi has simply written in remark column as Page 3 of 5 ‘approved’ which as per the case laws cited above is not enough to prove/show the application of mind by the approving authority. Therefore, in our considered view that such approval is just mechanical in nature without proper application of mind by the approving authority. Accordingly, we keeping in view, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Govanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (Supra), the additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Since, we have already quashed the reopening proceedings in preceding paragraphs, therefore we are not adjudicating the other grounds of appeal raised on merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd February, 2026.