SPMG Consultants Priavte Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, [in short, the “Ld. CIT(A”], Delhi’s order dated 23.02.2026 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086408614(1) involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) 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 assessee has invited tribunal’s attention to page(s) 18-19 of the paper-book herein containing the learned prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 22.03.2024 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he had recorded “ In view of the detailed facts stated in the proposal, itself of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby approved” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

I am of the considered view in this factual back drop that the impugned reopening itself is a non-est since based on a mere mechanical approval of the learned prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC); as reiterated in ACIT vs. Teleperformance Global Service Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 478 ITR 78 (SC), to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.