Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.