SHRAY JAIN,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 615/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2025AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151. This mechanical approval vitiated the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was against the CIT(A)'s order passed under section 147/148 r.w.s. 143(3). The primary issue raised was the validity of the reopening proceedings.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment proceedings due to a lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority as required by Section 151 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

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, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 13.10.2025Pronounced: 13.10.2025

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:

1.

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 151

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →