PAWAN KUMAR PANDEY HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59(6), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6355/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2020-213 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 found that the approval for reopening by the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This rendered the reopening invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 challenges the reopening of assessment under section 147. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening itself.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the reopening of assessment was valid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, without independent application of mind.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pawan Kumar Pandey HUF, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-1/348 D-1/Block Ward -59(6), Nand Nagri, Delhi Delhi PAN: AAQHP1488P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2025-26/1079543880(1), dated 12.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 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 the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which goes to the root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited my attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 28th March, 2024 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I have gone through the proposal of AO and satisfied myself…..…….” than having applied it's independent mind thereupon.

3.

Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority. I make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. I thus quote CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the impugned reopening in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →