Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) orders for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13, which arose from proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening of the assessments.
Held
The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessments was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval under Section 151 was a mere mechanical 'yes I am satisfied' without applying independent mind. Citing CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was the validity of the assessment reopening, specifically whether the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical or based on independent application of mind.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 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, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.177, 178, 180 & 181/DDN/2025 for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata’s orders, all dated 29.07.2025, having DINs and orders nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1079029691(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/10790305584(1),
ITA Nos.177, 178, 180 & 181/DDN/2025
ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079031344(1) and ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26/1079032112(1), involving proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files 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 identical approval to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal in all the four instant appeals, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon.
We thus are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
2 | P a g e
ITA Nos.177, 178, 180 & 181/DDN/2025
These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.177, 178, 180 & 181/DDN/2025 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th January, 2026 (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th January, 2026. RK/-