SANIF AHMED,MEERUT V. ITO, WARD 2(3), MEERUT

ITA 3995/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sanif Ahmed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which pertained to proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of the assessment by the Income Tax Officer, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority, lacking an independent examination of the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening and allowed the appeal, rendering further arguments on merits unnecessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822626 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), 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: MAHESH KUMAR
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3995/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanif Ahmed, 70, Topchiwada, Kotwali, Meerut Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Meerut PAN: BFLPA1150E (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2024-25/1071535690(1), dated 24.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation petition attributing delay for 111 days to the circumstances beyond its Assessee by None (written submission) Department by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 23.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3995/Del/2025 2 | P a g e control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay. 3. 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 to the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded “yes I am satisfied………” than having applied its independent mind thereupon. 4. We thus are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th December, 2025. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3995/Del/2025 3 | P a g e RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "