MURARI LAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SAVITRI DEVI,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4003/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2025AY 2014-153 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 reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval for reopening by the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed with a delay, which was condoned. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to a mechanically granted approval by the prescribed authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2024-25/1071249423(1), dated 16.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 111 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and 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 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………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon.

4.

We thus are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →