SHOKINDER KUMAR ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD - 2 (3) , GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9011/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

The validity of the reopening proceedings due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

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”).

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 23.03.2018 (page 5 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing

1.

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.

4.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →