Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 12 ITAT CK 4651

Sanif Ahmed vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 23 December 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.3995/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 237 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

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/250/2024-25/1071535690(1), dated 24.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 111 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay.

3.

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 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon.

4.

We thus are 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.