SANJAY KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 3(3), NOIDA, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6582/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2010-113 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 because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was a mere mechanical 'Yes, fit case....' and was not rebutted by the department.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. 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 mechanical approval from the prescribed authority, which goes to the root of the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025

Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, 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/250/2024-25/1065043583(1), dated 21.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 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.

Delay of 442 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeals is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

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 our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has only recorded “Yes, fit case….”.

4.

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 assessment. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →