Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Radhey Shyam,Than Singh Nagar vs Dcit , Civic Centre on 6 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.6631/Del/2025
[Assessment Year : 2013-14]
Radhey Shyam vs DCIT
47/93, New Delhi Circle-61(1)
Delhi-110005 New Delhi
PAN-ABAPS6682H
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by Shri Rajat Garg, CA
Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 06.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2026
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 04.02.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC"), Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10111025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] arising out of assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 26.09.2013, declaring total income of INR 73,65,490/-. The assessment u/s 143[3) was completed vide order dated ITA No.6631/Del/2025 31.12.2015 for AY 2013-14 at an income of INR 92,62,440/-. Later it is found from Insight Portal that the assessee was one of the major beneficiaries of the bogus financial transaction carried out with M/s Bansal Traders (Prop. Dharmendra Kumar Bansal-ANFPBB459E) and the assessee has entered into illegal transactions amounting to Rs. 62,67,075/-. Therefore, case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining approval from higher authorities. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued on various dates. Since the assessee has failed to submit any reply, thus, the assessing officer passed the assessment order wherein total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 1,36,32,565/- vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 04.02.2025, set aside the issue to the file of Assessing Officer.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-
1.1. "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the PCIT, New Delhi, has erred in according sanction u/s 151 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, by issuing a single consolidated approval covering 111 cases, without any independent or case-specific satisfaction, thereby rendering the approval mechanical, invalid and void ab initio.
1.2. That in view of the invalid and mechanical approval so granted u/s 151, the consequential notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, illegal and liable to be quashed. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing officer in initiating Page | 2 ITA No.6631/Del/2025 the re-assessment proceedings in total disregard to the correct factual position and various documents already on record. 2.2 That the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are purely based on the information received from insight portal and in absence of any independent application of mind or investigation undertaken, the reopening u/s 148 is wholly based on borrowed satisfaction and is not sustainable for want of tangible/adverse material.
2.3 That the original assessment having been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer after due verification of payment of opening balance of creditors, the notice u/s 148 is merely on account of change of opinion and for the purposes of re-appreciation of material already on record which is impermissible. 2.4 That the Appellant having already disclosed the particulars of payments made to the opening creditor balance of M/s Bansal Traders in the Audited balance Sheet and during the course of full scrutiny proceedings, there is no case of any failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose material facts in terms of 1 proviso of section 147 of the Act and as such notice u/s 148 is illegal and barred by limitation.
3.1 That even on merits, the CITIA) was not justified in setting aside the order back to the file of the Assessing officer without properly adjudicating the grounds and contentions raised by the Appellant. 3.2 That infact, the Assessing Officer, has erred in mechanically treating payments of Rs. 62,67,075/- towards opening creditors as bogus, despite the purchases being duly recorded in the preceding year.
3.3 That in absence of any dispute with regard to purchases or trading results, the Assessing officer was not justified in making the addition particularly when opening balance of trade creditor is of consequential nature.
3.4 That the purchase transaction incurred with M/s Bansal Traders being fully supported from relevant documentary evidences, the action of the Assessing officer in making the addition without rejecting the Audited books of accounts in terms of proviso to section 145 or disputing the quantitative stock is mechanical and arbitrary. 3.5 That even otherwise, the income earned from sale of goods purchased from M/s Bansal Traders already forming part of the returned income for the preceding year, the addition in respect of such transaction tantamount to double addition and as such the impugned addition is against the principle of natural justice.
Page | 3 ITA No.6631/Del/2025
4. That the orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and same are bad in law.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any or all of the grounds as may be necessary and in the interest of justice."
5. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. In Ground of appeal Nos.1.1 to 1.2, assessee claimed that case of the assessee is re-opened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining the approval of Ld. PCIT wherein Ld. PCIT has granted common approval for 111 cases without applying his mind to each individual case. Copy of the necessary approval is placed at pages 7 to 10 of the PB, wherein the name of the assessee is appearing at S. No. 4 of the list which is reproduced as under :-
Page | 4 ITA No.6631/Del/2025 Page | 5 ITA No.6631/Del/2025 Page | 6 ITA No.6631/Del/2025 Page | 7 ITA No.6631/Del/2025 Page | 8 ITA No.6631/Del/2025
6. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Solanki vs ACIT 2024] 166 taxmann.com 71 [Delhi] has considered this common approval given for 111 cases where Vinod Kr Solanki is one of the parties and his name is appearing at S.No. 45 of the list and held that such approval does not fulfill the requirement of section 151 of the Act and accordingly, held the same as invalid approval and consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was quashed. The relevant observation as contained in para 15 to 17 in the order of the Hon'ble High Court are as under:-
15. "It is a trite law that the grant of approval/sanction is neither an empty formality nor a mechanical exercise. The Competent Authority must apply its mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of approval/sanction.
16. Perusal of the record reveals that the proforma for seeking approval was placed before the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax along with a note of reasons for re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The PCIT passed the following orders:-
"On careful perusal of information received, relevant details/evidences submitted and reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the cases from SL. No. 1 to 111 as listed in the annexures enclosed appear prima facie to be fit cases for action u/s 147/148 of the I. T. Act, 1961."
17. It is evident that the approval dated 28.03.2021 is in respectof111 cases of reassessment. It is a general order ofapprovalforallthe111 cases. There is not even a whisper as to what material had weighed in the grant of approval in the present case. While the PCIT is not required to record elaborate reasons, he has to record satisfaction after application of mind. The approval is a safeguard and has to be meaningful and not merely ritualistic or formal. The sanction order does not refer to the material of any of the 111 cases. The grant of approval in such a manner does not fulfil the requirement of section 151 of the Act."
Page | 9 ITA No.6631/Del/2025
7. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sunita Bhardwaj vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 1435, 1434,1433 & 1432/Del/2024 vide order dated 29.08.2025 has also considered the same approval given for 111 cases and held the approval as defective and consequent order passed, was quashed. The relevant observations of Co-ordinate Bench in para 22 of the order are as under:-
22. "It is further seen from the copy of order sheet available at pages 405 to 407 of the paper book for AY 2012-13 , as reproduced above, in the case of assessee, the approval for AY 2014-15 was granted twice at S.No. 62 & 79 and for AY 2013-14 at S.No. 68 however, no approval was available for AY 2015-16 by Ld. Pr.CIT. This further established the fact that the approval in the case of the assessee was given in a mechanical manner and approval for multiple assesses was given by a single order thus, Ld. Pr. CIT has not applied his mind while granting the approval for re-opening of the assessment. In view of these facts and placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (supra) and further Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as referred above in assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 in ITA No 1434/Del/2024, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval granted by Ld. Pr. CIT is without application of mind and was granted in mechanical manner therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act and the consequent re-assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.
143(3) for all the three assessment years i.e. for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 are hereby, quashed. The grounds of appeals Nos. 1 & 2 for all these three years are thus allowed."
8. Since the facts of the case are identical to the facts of Vinod Kumar Solanki (supra) and also with Sunita Bhardwaj (supra) where the cases were reopened on the basis of the common approval and assessee is also part of the said common approval and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held such approval granted u/s 151 as invalid. Thus, by respectfully following the said order, we hereby, Page | 10 ITA No.6631/Del/2025 hold that approval granted u/s 151 by Ld. PCIT for 111 cases without recording satisfaction of each individual case separately is mechanical approval and is not in accordance with the provision of section 151 of the Act and thus, is not valid approval. Accordingly, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the case of assessee based on such approval is held as invalid and consequent re-assessment order is quashed. Grounds of appeal No. 1.1 to 1.2 are accordingly, allowed.
9. Since we have quashed the re-assessment order and allowed Grounds of appeal Nos. 1.1 to 1.2 raised by the assessee, the other Grounds of appeal became academic hence, not adjudicated.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.03.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date:- 06.03.2026
*Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
6. Guard File
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
Page | 11