Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arose against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on an approval from the prescribed authority which stated 'yes, I am satisfied'. Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such an approval vitiates the entire reopening.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment proceedings for want of a valid approval by the prescribed authority.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050459717(1), dated 06.03.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’].
Heard both 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 main reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s 151 of the Act.
Our attention is invited to page 89 in the 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 (56) that such an approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms.
All other issue on merits between parties stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025