KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

ITA 2727/KOL/2025

AI Insights

Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the reopening of their assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was the validity of the reassessment order and the approval process under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined whether the PCIT's approval for reopening the assessment was granted after a proper application of mind or was merely a mechanical endorsement. Citing various precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the approval was indeed mechanical and lacked the necessary judicial scrutiny, leading to the quashing of the notice and the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838988 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT, PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd, Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Income-tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., Ess Adv. (Mauritius) S. N. C. Et Compagnie v. ACIT, Chhugamal Rajpal, Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd v. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Madhya Pradesh High Court vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd., Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Chhugamal Rajpal vs. Income-tax Officer, Income-tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONALISA PAL MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: S RATAN KUMAR GOEL; RITES GOEL; ARS
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Reopening of assessment; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 22/1, Ground Floor, Alipore Road, Alipore H.O. Kolkata-700027, West Bengal Vs. ACIT, CC-3(4) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 5th floor, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCK1659H Assessee by : S/Shri Ratan Kumar Goel & Rites Goel, ARs Revenue by : Shri Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, DR Date of hearing: 29.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.08.2025 for the AY 2012-13. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised additional ground which is extracted below: “(a) That the impugned reassessment order dated 17.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the act that in the case of the assessee for the reassessment year 2012-13 is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and bad in law. The reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated vide notice dated 14.03.2019 u/s. 148 and that the mandatory approval of the sanctioning authority i.e. the principal commissioner of income tax as required to be obtained u/s. 151 of the act is invalid. (b) That the sanctioning authority i.e. the principal commissioner of income tax has not applied his mind while granting an approval and therefore the approval accorded by the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 sanctioning authority is invalid and so the proceedings-initiated u/s. 148 of the act has no legs to stand.” 2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised the above additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act without any application of mind and without there being a proper approval of the competent authority. In our opinion the issue raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts is required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 30.09.2012, declaring total income at ₹30,37,680/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of ₹1,85,000/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 14.03.2019, by the ld. AO which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income on 28.06.2019. Thereafter, the statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee which were partly complied with by the assessee. Finally, the ld. AO made the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained income/ credit of ₹2,00,00,000/-. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the legal issue of invalid reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act thereby upholding the re-opening of assessment. 5. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act has been made by the ld. AO without any application of mind and also without there being any valid approval given by the competent authority. The ld. AR submitted that the approval granted u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the ld. PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata, wherein in para 13 it has been stated in the approval status as ‘yes, I am satisfied, may be reopened’. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that such mechanical approval by the ld. PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata, is invalid as the same is mechanical and is without application of mind and recording of objective satisfaction by the PCIT. In order to buttress his arguments, the ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in WP(C) 4303/ 2017 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble court has decided the similar issue by holding that mere mechanical manner of approval is not valid and the reopening made based upon that said approval is bad in law. 6. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this is a system of the department involving the administrative hierarchy where the files are moved for the approval with all details , notings and explanation. The ld. DR argued that it is only after going through the same, the higher ups use to grant the approval/ sanction on the same. Accordingly, in this case also when the file was put up before the ld. PCIT, the said authority granted the approval after perusing the detailed notings and Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 mentioned as satisfied as a token of having granted approval for reopening. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee may be dismissed. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the sanction by the ld. PCIT is mechanical and without application of mind . For the sake of ready reference we extract the approval granted by the ld. PCIT as under:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 7.1. A perusal of the above sanction accorded by the PCIT reveals that approval granted u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the ld. PCIT, Central-2, Kolkata-2, wherein in para 13, it has been stated in the approval status as ‘yes, I am satisfied, may be reopened’, which is a mechanical approval in our considered view. We note that the ld. PCIT has not recorded his own satisfaction while granting the approval u/s 151 of the Act and therefore, the purpose of providing the mechanism of granting approval by the higher authority to the reopening of assessment is defeated as it is safeguard provided under the /act against any wrongful re-opening. Therefore the approval granted by the PCIT cannot be considered as valid approval as the sanctioning has accorded the same with non-application of mind and in a mechanical manner. 7.2. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC)[30-03-1976], wherein it has been held that where the sanction is required for initiating certain proceeding and after expiry of four years, such sanction must be recorded after independent consideration of materials and reasons. The sanctioning authority cannot merely rubber-stamp the proposal of the ld. Assessing Officer. 7.3. Similarly in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay)/[2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay)/[2011] 239 CTR 183 (Bombay)[12-04-2010], held that sanction accorded by the Commissioner must show independent application of mind. 7.4. Similarly, in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 (Delhi)/[2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi)[26-05-2017], it has been held that the satisfaction of the commissioner is essentially jurisdictional condition for reopening after four years, such satisfaction must be based on independent application of mind to the reasons recorded and materially available. The mechanical approval without consideration of facts vitiates the proceedings. Similarly in case of Commissioner of Income-tax. vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 245 (SC)/[2023] 453 ITR 242 (SC)[08-07-2015], it was categorically held that such approval has to be after proper verification of material and cannot be mechanical. 7.5. Similarly, the approval has been granted in a mechanical manner, wherein it was only mentioned in the approval status as approved. In our opinion, in the case of the assessee, such an approval is mechanical approval and cannot be considered as valid approval. In our opinion, the PCIT has to record the reasons and the satisfaction for having granted such approval. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment on the basis of said approval is bad in law. Case of the assessee find force from the decision of Capital Broadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra), wherein Hon'ble HC has held that the approval granted by the ld. PCIT by just using the words like ‘yes, I am satisfied’ will not satisfied the requirement of law and accordingly, the notice was set aside. The operative part of the decision is extracted below:- “10. Section 151(1) of the Act categorically provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer, after expiry of period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. In the present case, since reopening was beyond the period of four years, it was for the PCIT to record satisfaction for reopening the assessment. In the case of SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(2), Delhi, WP (C) 7885/2023, we had clearly held that prescribed authority referred to in Section 151 must be \"satisfied\" on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 issuance of such notice and therefore the satisfaction of the prescribed authority is a sine qua non for a valid approval. We had also held that the competent authority must apply its mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction. 11. While dealing with the scope and requirement under Section 151 of the Act for initiating proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act, this Court in the case of Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (2017) 397 ITR 665, held as under:- \"11. The purpose of Section 151 of the Act is to introduce a supervisory check over the work of the AO, particularly, in the context of reopening of assessment. The law expects the AO to exercise the power under Section 147 of the Act to reopen an assessment only after due application of mind. If for some reason, there is an error that creeps into this exercise by the AO, then the law expects the superior officer to be able to correct that error. This explains why Section 151 (1) requires an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner to oversee the decision of the AO where the return originally filed was assessed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. Further, where the reopening of an assessment is sought to be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, a further check by the further superior officer is contemplated.\" 12. We take note that request for approval under Section 151 of the Act in a printed format (Annexure P-6) was placed before the ACIT, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the PCIT. PCIT granted the approval on the very same day. The approval accorded by the ACIT and PCIT in Column No. 11 & 12 are extracted below:- \"11. Whether the Addl. CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by AO that it is a fit Case for the issue of notice u/s 148. I am satisfied Sd/- (G.G. Kamei) Addl. CIT, Range-5, New Delhi Dated 22.03.2017 12. Whether the Pr. Commissioner is satisfied: On the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s 148. Yes I am satisfied Sd/- P.K. Gupta) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, New Delhi Dated: 22.03.2017\" 13. The satisfaction arrived at by the concerned Officer should be discernible from the sanction order passed under Section 151 of the Act. However, as may be seen, the approval order is bereft of any reason. There is no whisper of any material that may have weighed for the grant of approval. 14. Even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process was, is missing in the afore- mentioned approval order. While elaborate reasons may not have been given, at least there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the material prior to granting approval. Mere appending the expression \"Yes I am satisfied\" says nothing. The entire exercise appears Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which should be the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a high ranking official. Reasons are the link between material placed on record and the conclusion reached by the authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. 15. This Court in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (2024) SCC OnLine Del 1685, while dealing with an identical challenge of approval, having been accorded mechanically, had held as under:- \"13. The primary grievance raised in the instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. xxxx xxxx xxxx 17. Thus, the incidental question which emanates at this juncture is whether simply penning down \"Yes\" would suffice requisite satisfaction as per Section 151 of the Act. Reference can be drawn from the decision of this Court in N. C. Cables Ltd., wherein, the usage of the expression \"approved\" was considered to be merely ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- \"11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression \"approved\" says nothing. It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the court is satisfied that the findings by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be disturbed.\" 18. Further, this Court in the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO [2011 SCC OnLine Del 472] has taken a view that merely rubber stamping of \"Yes\" would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under: - \"19. In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee (1974) 93 ITR 130 (Cal) and Govinda Choudhury and Sons case (1977) 109 ITR 370 (Orissa) are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the proforma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where literally a mere stamp is affixed. It is signed by an Under Secretary underneath a stamped Yes against the column which queried as to whether the approval of the Board had been taken. Rubber stamping of underlying Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 material is hardly a process which can get the imprimatur of this court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the Income-tax Officer was to be agreed upon, the least which is expected is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf setting out brief reasons. Reasons are the link between the material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. Our opinion is fortified by the decision of the apex court in Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, 97 wherein it was observed as under: \"27.. .. We find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the 'rubber stamp' reason given mechanically for the supersession of each officer does not amount to 'reasons for the proposed supersession'. The most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion. 28.... If that had been done, facts on service records of officers considered by the Selection Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable.\"(emphasis supplied).\" 19. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court refused to consider the affixing of signature alongwith the noting \"Yes\" as valid approval and had held as under:- \"5. --- Further the report submitted by him under Section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. To Question 8 in the report which reads \"whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under Section 148\", he just noted the word \"yes\" and affixed his signatures thereunder. We are of the opinion that if only he had read the report carefully, he could never have come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148. The important safeguards provided in Sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income Tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They have substituted the form for the substance.\" 20. This Court, while following Chhugamal Rajpal in the case of Ess Adv. (Mauritius) S. N. C. Et Compagnie v. ACIT [2021 SCC OnLine Del 3613], wherein, while granting the approval, the ACIT \"This is fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of−has written Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 the Income- tax Act, 1961. Approved\", had held that the said approval would only amount to endorsement of language used in Section 151 of the Act and would not reflect any independent application of mind. Thus, the same was considered to be flawed in law. 21. The salient aspect which emerges out of the foregoing discussion is that the satisfaction arrived at by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act must be clearly discernible from the expression used at the time of affixing its signature while according approval for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act. The said approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts as a linkage between the facts considered and conclusion reached. In the instant case, merely appending the phrase \"Yes\" does not appropriately align with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act as it fails to set out any degree of satisfaction, much less an unassailable satisfaction, for the said purpose. 22. So far as the decision relied upon the Revenue in the case of Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the same was a case where the satisfaction was specifically appended in the proforma in \"Yes, I am satisfied\". Moreover, paragraph 16 of−terms of the phrase the said decision distinguishes the approval granted using the expression \"Yes\" by citing Central India Electric Supply, which has already been discussed above. The decision in the case of Experion Developers P. Ltd. would also not come to the rescue of the Revenue as the same does not deal with the expression used in the instant appeal at the time of granting of approval. 23. Therefore, it is seen that the PCIT has failed to satisfactorily record its concurrence. By no prudent stretch of imagination, the expression \"Yes\" could be considered to be a valid approval. In fact, the approval in the instant case is apparently akin to the rubber stamping of \"Yes\" in the case of Central India Electric Supply.\" 16. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ITA 651/2015, while reiterating that the satisfaction has to be accorded on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice, the Court noted that by writing the words \"Yes, I am satisfied\" the mandate of Section 151(1) of the Act as far as approval of Additional CIT was concerned, stood satisfied. However, we may take note that such finding was arrived at by the Court in light of the fact that Additional CIT addressed a letter to the ITO stating as under:- \"In view of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the IT Act, approval for issue of notice under Section 148 is hereby given in the above-mentioned case, you are, accordingly directed to issue notice under Section 148 and submit a compliance report in this regard at the earliest.\" 17. Such letter sent by the Additional CIT to the ITO clearly reveals that the sanction was accorded after due application of mind and on considering the reasons narrated by the Assessing Officer. However, in the present case, there is no such material to come to the conclusion that PCIT granted approval after considering the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer. The decision rendered in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is therefore not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 18. Dealing with an identical challenge where the competent authority just recorded \"Yes I am satisfied\", the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. ITA 82/2012, held as under:- \"7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so \"Yes, I am satisfied\". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- \"The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format \"Yes, I am satisfied\" which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material. 8. If the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration.\" 19. The SLP challenging the decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court [(2015) 64 Taxman.com 313 (SC)]. 20. As explained in the above cases, mere repeating of the words of the statute, mere rubber stamping of the letter seeking sanction or using similar words like \"Yes, I am satisfied\" will not satisfy the requirement of law. Hence, we are of the firm view that PCIT has failed to satisfactorily record his concurrence. The mere use of expression \"Yes, I am satisfied\" cannot be considered to be a valid approval as the same does not reflect an independent application of mind. The grant of approval in such manner is thus flawed in law. 21. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the approval granted by the PCIT for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is not valid and therefore the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 24.03.2017 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside. 22. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 7.6. We therefore respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Judicial Forums , quash the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as well Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2727/KOL/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 as the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on the ground of invalid approval granted by PCIT. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 17.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "