INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-58(3), DELHI vs. SHRI RAM MANUFACTURES, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6760/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2025AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind, as mandated by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a lack of proper approval by the prescribed authority, which required an independent application of mind.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 143(3),Section 147

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 ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Bansal, Adv. (through VC);, Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.11.2025Pronounced: 27.11.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This Revenue’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2012-13 arises against CIT(A)/ JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai’s order dated 01.09.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080239778(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself for want of proper approval by the precise reason that the assessee has set into motion rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to this effect since the learned prescribed authority has approved the Assessing Officer’s impugned reopening proposal as “I am satisfied …..” than having applied his independent mind which forms a mandatory condition as per CIT v. S.

Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening proceedings. Faced with this situation I hereby reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions to annul the reopening in question as an invalid one. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 3. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →