Loading judgment…
Facts
This appeal by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 challenges an order from CIT(A)-28, New Delhi, stemming from reopening proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the invalidity of the reopening due to the absence of a proper approval under Section 151 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found that the approval under Section 151 was a mere formality, simply "approved" without due consideration. Citing precedents like CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. and PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., the tribunal quashed the impugned reopening initiated under Section 148/147, rendering all other arguments on merits academic.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was valid in the absence of a proper and reasoned approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Suruchi Food Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, Central Circle-14, L-7A(LGF), South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCS5011M Assessee by : Sh. Rajkumar, CA & Sh. J. P. Sharma, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi’s order dated 27.03.2024 in case No. 26/10477/2018-19, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We straightway advert to the assessee’s second substantive ground going to the root of the matter that the impugned reopening herein itself is not sustainable in law for want of a valid approval u/s 151 of the Act. Learned counsel has filed a copy of the said approval wherein the prescribed authority has simply “approved” it on 31.03.2018 without having given any due consideration thereto as per law and 2 Suruchi Food Pvt. Ltd. therefore, we quote CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) and PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (2017) 291 ITR 11 (Del.) to conclude that the impugned reopening u/s 148/147 set into motion by the learned Assessing Officer, deserves to be quashed in very terms. Mr. Bansal’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned reopening are hereby decline therefore.
3.1 All other pleadings on merits in the assessee’s instant appeal stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/12/2024.