Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee and Revenue filed cross-appeals against a CIT(A) order for assessment year 2009-10, involving proceedings under sections 144/147 of the Income-tax Act. The primary contention by the assessee was the invalidity of the assessment reopening itself, which they argued was based on a mechanical approval.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical, as evidenced by the remark “yes I am satisfied”. This mechanical approval, being unrebutted by the department, rendered the reopening invalid in light of judicial precedents.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment is valid if the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 is mechanical and lacks proper application of mind.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s order dated 29.11.2018 passed in case No.32/2016-17/GZB, involving proceedings under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
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)
2 | P a g e 56 taxmann.com 390(MP) deciding the issue against the department to the very effect.
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