SANIF AHMED,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3995/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2012-133 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 obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 challenges the reopening of assessment under section 147. The assessee sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was granted.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment. Specifically, whether the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 was proper and based on an independent application of mind.

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

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2024-25/1071535690(1), dated 24.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 111 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

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 →