Mamta Chaudhary vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai’s order dated 25.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074997086(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 334 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

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 dated 14.03.2019 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon (page -8 in paper-book)

Thus, I am of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7^th July, 2026 Sd/-

Dated: 28^th July, 2026.