PAWAN KUMAR PANDEY HUF,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59(6), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 6355/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pawan Kumar Pandey HUF against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which pertained to a reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-21. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening itself, which was challenged on the grounds that the approval for reopening was mechanically granted by the prescribed authority without an independent application of mind. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the case file, concluded that the reopening was invalid due to the lack of a substantive and independent consideration by the authority, leading to the quashing of the reopening.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789682 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2025
• 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: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6355/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pawan Kumar Pandey HUF, D-1/348 D-1/Block Nand Nagri, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -59(6), Delhi PAN: AAQHP1488P (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2025-26/1079543880(1), dated 12.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 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 Assessee by Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6355/Del/2025 2 | P a g e reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited my attention to the prescribed authority’s section 151 approval dated 28th March, 2024 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “I have gone through the proposal of AO and satisfied myself…..…….” 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. I make it clear that the foregoing clinching fact of the competent authority’s mechanical approval has indeed gone unrebutted from the department side. I 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. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24th November, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6355/Del/2025 3 | P a g e 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "