Sh. Kishan Chand Madan vs Income Tax Officer

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2023-24/1055124244(1), dated 14.08.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

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 (page 4 in paper-book) to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied………………” than having applied his independent mind.

Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority. We make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. We thus quote CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the assessment. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.