Sudershan Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Range Head was “Satisfied”, But Tribunal wasn’t – Reopening quashed – “Yes, I Am Satisfied” not enough – ITAT Delhi says no to mechanical sanction
Assessee challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 for AY 2012–13 due to lack of proper approval u/s 151.
The first & foremost issue of validity of the impugned section 148/147 reopening itself for want of a valid approval of the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act. Assessee invited Tribunal’s attention to AO’s corresponding reopening reasons along with section 148 wherein the learned prescribed authority appears to have mechanically approved the reopening reasons/proposals as “yes, I am satisfied………….”
Tribunal held that prescribed authority did not give due application of mind & acted mechanically. Relying on CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd (SC) Tribunal held that such sanction vitiate the entire reopening.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2023-24/1063339987(1), dated 25.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
