Krishan Kumar Bansal Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 in Krishan Kumar Bansal (Legal Heir), quashing the entire reassessment u/s 147 solely on the ground of mechanical approval u/s 151, without examining merits.
The assessee raised additional legal grounds, demonstrating that the JCIT’s sanction dated 20.03.2013 merely recorded “approved” in the remarks column, with no indication of application of mind. The Tribunal accepted these grounds, holding that such ritualistic endorsement does not satisfy the statutory safeguard embedded in s.151.
Relying on a consistent line of binding precedents—SC in Chhugamal Rajpal, MP HC in Goyanka Lime & Chemical (affirmed by the Supreme Court), and Delhi HC in N.C. Cables—the Bench held that mere use of the word “approved” is insufficient. The approving authority must demonstrate conscious satisfaction, even if briefly. Absence thereof renders the notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment null and void.
Having quashed the reopening on this jurisdictional defect, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the additions u/s 69A or the penalty notice u/s 271AAC.
Result:
– Reopening u/s 147 quashed
– Assessment annulled
– All additions & penalties rendered academic
– Appeal allowed in full
Key takeaway: Section 151 is a real safeguard—rubber-stamp approvals don’t pass muster; “approved” without thought invalidates the entire reassessment.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
