DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4296/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The Judicial Member, relying on the fact that the prescribed authority's approval for reopening under section 151 was a mere mechanical "yes, I am satisfied" and that this fact was unrebutted by the Revenue, found the reopening to be bad in law. The Tribunal quoted CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to support its decision to quash the impugned reopening. Consequently, all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Desraj, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The impugned order was passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a delay of 185 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The primary issue that arose for consideration was the validity of the reopening of assessment. The assessee's counsel pointed to the approval for reopening dated March 26, 2021, where the prescribed authority recorded "yes, I am satisfied" without applying an independent mind. This fact remained unrebutted by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment is invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the reopening of assessment is invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical, indicated by the phrase "yes, I am satisfied," without the authority applying its independent mind. The assessee relied on the decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the fact of the competent authority's mechanical approval went unrebutted from the department's side. Therefore, no specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue on this issue.

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(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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 20.11.2025Pronounced: 20.11.2025

Date of hearing 20.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 20.11.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2024-25/1070089905(1), dated 04.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 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 assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 185 days in filing of the instant appeal is 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 my attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 26th March, 2021 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes, I am satisfied……….” than having applied it's independent mind thereupon.

4.

Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority. 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 impugned reopening in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 151

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →