Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld proceedings under Section 147. The core issue was the validity of the reopening notice.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and did not reflect an independent application of mind, quoting CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 due to a lack of proper approval from the competent authority.
Sections Cited
147, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 21.01.2025 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-29, 10629/2016-17, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
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 dated 30th March, 2021 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes, I am satisfied……….” than having applied it's independent mind thereupon.
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. We make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. We 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. 2 | P a g e