KISHAN CHAND MADAN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 68(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2900/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 October 2025AY 2017-183 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 because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This fact remained unrebutted by the department.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The primary issue raised was the approval granted by the prescribed authority for the reopening.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to the alleged mechanical approval by the prescribed authority for reopening the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151

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: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 08.10.2025Pronounced: 08.10.2025

Date of hearing 08.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.10.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055124244(1), dated 14.08.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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 approval (page 4 in paper-book) to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied………………” than having applied his independent mind.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →