Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the approval for reopening by the prescribed authority was mechanical, stating "Yes, I am satisfied………………………". Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening.
Key Issues
The validity of the reopening proceedings due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071012801(1) dated 09.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.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 23.03.2018 (page 5 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing
Shokinder Kumar Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes, 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.