RAJESH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7432/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: 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 was mechanical and did not reflect due consideration of the reasons. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2017-18, arising from proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening due to a lack of a valid approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the approval by the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind.

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

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081279200(1) dated 29.09.2025, 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 25.03.2021 (page 107 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing

1.

Rajesh Gupta Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes, in view of the reasons............”. 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →