PRAFUL PARMAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON
Facts
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15, arguing that the approval granted by the competent authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and non-speaking, merely stating 'Approved' without recording any satisfaction or reasons. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that this rendered the reassessment void ab initio.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., held that merely writing 'Approved' without recording satisfaction or reasons makes the approval mechanical and invalid. Consequently, the approval under Section 151 was quashed, rendering all subsequent reassessment proceedings non-est.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the approval granted under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings, which merely stated 'Approved' without any recorded satisfaction or reasons, was valid in law.
Sections Cited
Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 31.10.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
In this case, the assessee has raised both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic only.
The contention of law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that approval granted by the competent authority u/s. 151 of the Act was done in a completely mechanical and non-speaking manner. The approving authority has merely written the word “Approved” without recording any satisfaction or reasons. Therefore, such approval defeats the statutory safeguard build into Section 151 of the Act and renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.)
Before me, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated the aforesaid contention through the copy of the approval u/s.151 of the Act filed in the paper book
3 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025
and therein itself under the head approval details/remark of approving authority, it is just written the word “Approved”.
Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Revenue authorities.
Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and considering the judicial pronouncement, I am of the considered view that the issue raised by the Ld. Counsel is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held and observed as follows: “11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT (A), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT (A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed. 12. The substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on the same parity of reasoning, it is held that mere appending of the expression
4 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025
‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT (A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner that would suffice requirement of law. However, since in this case, only the word “Approved” is written, therefore, it is clearly evident that such approval has been granted in a casual and mechanical manner which makes the assessment order perverse, arbitrary and bad in law, hence, liable to be quashed. In view of the afore-stated, the said approval granted u/s. 151 of the Act sans any satisfaction and reasoning is therefore quashed.
That once the approval itself is quashed, all other subsequent proceedings becomes non-est as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 19th day of February, 2026.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 19th February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.)
5 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025
�वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
