Sushil Kumari Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
“I Find It a Fit Case” Isn’t Sanction: ITAT Delhi Quashes Reopening for Mechanical Approval u/s 151
Delhi ITAT “SMC” Bench, comprising Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), allowed the appeal of Sushil Kumari for AY 2017-18 and quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147, holding that the sanction granted u/s 151 was mechanical and invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the approval dated 31.03.2021 by the prescribed authority merely recorded the phrase “I find it a fit case …”, without demonstrating any independent application of mind to the reasons for reopening. Such a bald endorsement, the Bench held, does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of section 151.
Relying on the binding Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (64 taxmann.com 313), the ITAT held that mechanical sanction vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the entire reopening and consequent assessment void ab initio.
In view of the reassessment being quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal held that all other issues on merits became academic. Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 7076/Del/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 15.09.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080745268(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
