ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMAN CHAWLA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3931/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process, citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening proceedings due to a lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Agni Chaudhary, Adv. &
Hearing: 15.12.2025Pronounced: 15.12.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055628431(1) dated 31.08.2023, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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. The tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 20.03.2019 (page 1 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.

4.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →