Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed five appeals against the CIT(A)/NFAC orders for assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13, which arose from reopening proceedings under sections 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue concerned the validity of the reopening approvals granted by the JCIT.
Held
The tribunal held that the JCIT's approval for reopening was invalid as it was granted without applying independent mind, merely stating 'approval is hereby accorded' based on the proposal. Citing CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd., the tribunal concluded that all reopenings were non-est in the eyes of law and quashed them.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening assessments due to the JCIT's mechanical approval without independent application of mind.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 143(3)
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 MANISH AGARWAL
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s five appeals ITA Nos. 20 to 24/DDN/2021 for assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated. 04.05.2021 (for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11) and 05.05.2021 (for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13) having DINs and ITA Nos.20 to 24/DDN/2021
Orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1032769797(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1032769738(1), ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2021-22/1032769674(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1032782247(1), involving proceedings under sections 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned identical reopening(s) herein as the learned prescribed authority i.e. JCIT, Haridwar Range, Haridwar had accorded its approval thereto on 25th March, 2015 as on the basis of reasons as admitted in your proposal/approval “for issue of notice ……………….. is hereby accorded” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd., (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to conclude that all these reopening(s) based on the learned JCIT’s identical approval are non-est in the eyes of law. Quashed in very terms.
2 | P a g e
ITA Nos.20 to 24/DDN/2021
All other remaining pleadings between the partes stand rendered academic.
These assessee’s five appeals ITA Nos.20 to 24/DDN/2021 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2026 (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19th January, 2026. RK/-