SONIA,SONIPAT vs. ITO,WARD-4, SONIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3151/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 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 held that the reopening was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151(2) was mechanical and generic, covering multiple cases without specific application to the assessee's case. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening process.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a mechanical and non-specific approval by the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151(2)

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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv
Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069267307(1), dated 30.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 133 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which goes to the root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151(2) approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “On careful perusal of information received……….the case from sl. No. 1 to 11 as listed in the annexure enclosed are hereby approved for actions u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961””.

4.

Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical and common approval of the said prescribed authority in eleven cases. We make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. We thus quote CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the assessment. Ordered accordingly.

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 →