CHANDRAMUKHI,HATHRAS vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), HATHRAS, HATHRAS
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and therefore vitiated the entire reopening process. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was against an order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act. The primary issue raised 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 lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.340 citing453 ITR 242 · 2015 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, 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/250/2023-24/1058481592(1) dated 05.12.2023, 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 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.
Our attention is invited to the copy of approval dated 14.12.2016 (placed on case file) wherein learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes, 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 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
