ARCHANA CHAWLA,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

ITA 4140/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Archana Chawla, the appellant, contesting the reopening of her income tax assessment for the year 2016-17 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-59(1), Delhi. The reopening was based on a proposal approved by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary legal contention was the validity of this reopening, which the appellant argued was mechanically approved without proper consideration. The Tribunal, referencing the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd., found the reopening to be invalid and quashed it, rendering all other arguments on merits academic.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784667 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: C. S. ANAND
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4140/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ms. Archana Chawla, Flat No. 601, Tower-9, CWG, Village Apartments, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-59(1), Delhi PAN: ABAPW8712G (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, 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/250/2023-24/1061610749(1), dated 27.02.2024 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. Assessee by Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Adv. Ms. Astha, Adv. Department by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4140/Del/2024 2 | P a g e 2. 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 30.03.2021 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes, I am satisfied” than having applied it's independent mind thereupon. 3. 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 impugned reopening in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th November, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4140/Del/2024 3 | P a g e Dated: 13th November, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "