MOHAMMAD PARWAIZ AKHTAR,GURGRAM vs. WARD 2(5) GURGAON. , GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7125/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the approval for reopening under section 151 of the Act was mechanical and not based on proper application of mind. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC order. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Income Tax Act?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,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: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 29.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064352870(1) dated 25.04.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 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 26.03.2019 (page 11 & 12 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “I am

1.

Mohammad Parwaiz Akhtar 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →