Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) concerning Assessment Year 2012-13, which arose from proceedings under sections 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening itself.
Held
The tribunal noted that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacking specific satisfaction from the prescribed authority. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it was held that such mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
The main issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings due to a lack of a valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)-25, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1079333080(1) dated 06.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 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 31.03.2019 (page 110 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “I am satisfied.........”. This Mahendar Kumar Soni 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.