SH. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(2), MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 443/AGR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 February 2025AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 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 due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing a precedent that such approval vitiates the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2006-07 was against the CIT(A)'s order. The proceedings involved reopening of assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

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

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(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, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 13.02.2025Pronounced: 13.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [in short the “CIT(A)], Agra’s order in appeal No. 02/CIT(A)-I/Agra/ITO- 3(2)/Mathura/2014-15 dated 27.03.2018, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

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.

4.

Our attention is invited to page 32 of the assessee’s paper book wherein the 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 case file, 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.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13THFebruary, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →