Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid based on a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
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
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.
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.
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.