ITO, WARD-1(4), GHAZIABAD vs. MAYA DEVI, GHAZIABAD

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

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 approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied”.

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 accordingly quote CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) upholding Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s corresponding judgment in (2015)

Learned counsel has further furnished the assesee’s case law paper-books running into 173 pages containing of various other judicial precedents against the department. We accordingly conclude in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the impugned reopening deserves to be quashed for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority in very terms. Ordered accordingly. Assessee’s appeal in succeeds and the Revenue’s cross appeals fails.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

This assesee’s is allowed whereas Revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case file. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd December, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 2nd December, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 3 | P a g e