BINDU RANI,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD 3, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4054/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 reopening notice was issued before the approval from the Additional Commissioner, rendering the reopening unsustainable in law. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's twin appeals arose from orders related to assessment year 2017-18, initiated under Section 147 and Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the validity of the Section 148 reopening notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the Section 148 notice for reopening the assessment was validly issued prior to obtaining the required approval under Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271AAC(1),Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CA
Hearing: 27.08.2025Pronounced: 27.08.2025

many orders DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058278959(1) dated 28.11.2023 & DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059988836(1) dated 22.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, respectively. wherein she raises her first and foremost substantive ground that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in initiating the impugned reopening vide section 148 notice issued to her on 28.03.2021 (page ‘A’ in the paper book). Her precise case in other words is that the learned prescribed authority i.e. the “Additional Commissioner, Range-1”, had in fact granted his section 151 approval on 30.03.2021 at 12.14 PM (page A1 to A3 in the case records), whereas the above section 148 notice had been issued to her very well before that i.e. on March 28, 2021 at 3.30 PM.

3.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute all the preceding factual development in the assessee’s case. We, therefore, are of the considered view that given the fact that the impugned section 148 reopening notice had been issued very well before the learned Additional Commissioner having approved the Assessing Officer’s reopening reason, the same is not sustainable in law. We, accordingly quash the impugned reopening in very terms.

All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.

The assessee succeeds in her ‘quantum’ appeal ITA 4037/Del/2024 in above terms.

4.

Same order to follow in assessee’s consequential penalty appeal ITA 4054/Del/2024 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in open court on 27.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →