Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Shray Jain, Vs DCIT, 4735/22, Prakash Deep Building, Central Circle-26, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110055 Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHHPJ5873C Assessee by : Sh. Prem Lamba, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10204/2019-20 dated 09.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147/148 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s. 151 of the Act.
Shray Jain 4. Our attention is invited to the copy of approval dated 08.03.2019 (page 26 in paper book) wherein learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Perused.......recorded, satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148”. This being the clinching factual position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.