SUSHIL KUMARI,DELHI vs. ITO (W) 36(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7076/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 under Section 151 was mechanical and not based on an independent application of mind, making it unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned assessment was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, related to assessment year 2017-18. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to a mechanical approval for reopening. The tribunal also considered the merits of the case but found them rendered academic due to the quashing of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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 ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 15.09.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080745268(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening herein, it transpires at the outset from a perusal of the learned prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 31.03.2021 that it had simply recorded “I find it a fit case …..”, than having applied its independent mind thereupon.

3.

That being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote PCIT v. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the impugned assessment itself as such a mechanical approval exercise is not sustainable in law. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 24.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →