PRAFUL PARMAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 828/RPR/2025Status: HeardITAT Raipur19 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 19.02.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

1.

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.

2. 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.

3.

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.)

4.

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

5.

Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Revenue authorities.

6.

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.”

7.

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.)

‘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.

8.

That once the approval itself is quashed, all other subsequent proceedings becomes non-est as per law.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 19th day of February, 2026.

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →