The Principal Commissioner accorded approval for reopening by merely recording, “Yes, I am satisfied and may be reopened.” The Tribunal held that the use of the word “may” reflected lack of a definitive direction and showed absence of proper application of mind. Such casual approval did not satisfy the requirement of section 151. The reassessment proceedings were, therefore, quashed. (AY. 2012-13 to 2015-16).
Rungta Irrigation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 169 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Approval under section 151 recording “Yes, I am satisfied and may be reopened”-Mechanical approval-Without independent satisfaction-Reassessment invalid.[S. 147, 148]
Leave a Reply