ARCHANA CHAWLA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4140/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)3 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 was invalid because the approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and did not reflect an independent application of mind. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arose against an order involving proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid based on a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Adv, Ms. Astha, Adv
Hearing: 12.11.2025Pronounced: 12.11.2025

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ms. Archana Chawla, Flat No. 601, Tower-9, Ward-59(1), CWG, Village Apartments, Delhi Delhi PAN: ABAPW8712G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Adv. Ms. Astha, Adv. Department by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.11.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2023-24/1061610749(1), dated 27.02.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) 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 our attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 30.03.2021 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes, I am satisfied” 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. 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →