Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening proceedings due to a lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process, citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
144, 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 ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 225/192, Vishnu Garden, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122006 Gurgaon-122016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. APNPK9347Q Assessee by : Ms. Agni Chaudhary, Adv. & Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055628431(1) dated 31.08.2023, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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 20.03.2019 (page 1 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.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.