UPRIGHT ENTERPRISES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2665/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 February 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant 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 approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the prescribed authority. Citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arose against the order of the CIT(A) in proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening for want of valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind.

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(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 ‘B’, NEW DELHI

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

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 15.10.2025Pronounced: 15.10.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)-23, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073991084(1) dated 04.03.2025, 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.

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 Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. approval dated 10.05.2016 (page 1 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes” only than having applied it’s independent mind.

4.

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. The impugned 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 →