JHP PLOYMERS,C/O AKUL AGARWAL AND ASSOCIATES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISHWAS BHAWAN, IP ESTATE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1663/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2025AY 2011-122 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 was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was against an order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3). The primary issue was the validity of the reopening proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment for want of a valid approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),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 ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 16.12.2025Pronounced: 16.12.2025

Asstt. Year: 2011-12 J.H.P. Ploymers, Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. D2/20, Sector-10, DLF, Ward-55(2), Faridabad-121006 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEFJ2545D Assessee by : Sh. Akul Aggarwal, FCA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066847320(1) dated 19.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s. 151 of the Act. The tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 27.03.2018 (page 8 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “I am satisfied………”. This being the clinching factual position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.

4.

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 →