PRAFUL PARMAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

ITA 828/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Praful Parmar, the proprietor of P.K. Rewinders, who appealed against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary legal contention was regarding the approval process under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, which was claimed to be done in a mechanical and non-speaking manner, merely appending the word 'Approved' without any substantive reasoning or satisfaction recorded. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case by the Delhi High Court, agreed with the assessee's contention, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838101 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: YASH DHARIWAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Competent authority

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.828/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Praful Parmar Prop. P.K. Rewinders, Near Gayatri School, Ranjandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) PAN: AIYPP5696D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yash Dhariwal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 31.10.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. In this case, the assessee has raised both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic only. 3. The contention of law raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that approval granted by the competent authority u/s. 151 of the Act was done in a completely mechanical and non-speaking manner. The approving authority has merely written the word “Approved” without recording any satisfaction or reasons. Therefore, such approval defeats the statutory safeguard build into Section 151 of the Act and renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.) 4. Before me, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated the aforesaid contention through the copy of the approval u/s.151 of the Act filed in the paper book Printed from counselvise.com 3 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025 and therein itself under the head approval details/remark of approving authority, it is just written the word “Approved”. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Revenue authorities. 6. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein and considering the judicial pronouncement, I am of the considered view that the issue raised by the Ld. Counsel is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held and observed as follows: “11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT (A), 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 CIT (A) 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 ITAT cannot be disturbed. 12. The substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed.” 7. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on the same parity of reasoning, it is held that mere appending of the expression Printed from counselvise.com 4 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025 ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT (A) 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 that would suffice requirement of law. However, since in this case, only the word “Approved” is written, therefore, it is clearly evident that such approval has been granted in a casual and mechanical manner which makes the assessment order perverse, arbitrary and bad in law, hence, liable to be quashed. In view of the afore-stated, the said approval granted u/s. 151 of the Act sans any satisfaction and reasoning is therefore quashed. 8. That once the approval itself is quashed, all other subsequent proceedings becomes non-est as per law. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 19th day of February, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 19th February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) Printed from counselvise.com 5 Praful Parmar Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ITA No.828/RPR/2025 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "