Sunita Bhardwaj Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessments – Mechanical & Common Sanctions u/s 151 Held Invalid
Delhi Tribunal annulled reassessment proceedings holding that approvals granted u/s 151 for reopening were mechanical & invalid.
Assessee, an advocate, had declared income of ₹46.39 lakh for AY 2012-13. Based on Investigation Wing inputs, AO reopened the case & completed reassessment u/s 147/144, making additions of ₹1.75 crore u/s 68 & ₹35 lakh as notional house property income. CIT(A) partly reduced the additions but sustained ₹91.34 lakh u/s 68 & ₹14 lakh notional income. Similar reassessments were made for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16.
Before ITAT, assessee challenged validity of reopening on the ground that sanction by Pr.CIT was merely mechanical, with remarks such as “Yes, as per O/s.” or consolidated approvals for more than 100 cases in a single order-sheet entry. It was argued that such blanket approvals showed non-application of mind, contrary to law.
Tribunal agreed, observing that approvals were granted for over 111 cases on a single day with stereotyped remarks, sometimes even repeated twice for the same year, & in one year no approval existed at all. Relying on CIT Vs S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (SC), SABH Infrastructure (Del HC), N.C. Cables Ltd. (Del HC), Saraswat Co-op Bank Ltd. (Bom HC), & SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (Del HC), it held that mechanical sanction without due satisfaction vitiates reopening. Consequently, reassessment proceedings for all four years were quashed as bad in law. Other grounds on merits became academic.
