ARIHANT CHAND JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-59(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5330/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2009-10Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla (Accountant 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 was a mechanical one, stating "I am satisfied.....". Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, which was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 363 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the tribunal. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024–25/1065412541(1) dated 05.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 363 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Arihant Chand Jain 4. 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. The tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 30.03.2016 (page 3 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “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, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.

5.

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 →