citedby: 40440287

Sandhya Sharma, Delhi vs Acit, Central Circle-14, New Delhi on 16 October, 2024

8. After considering the submissions of both sides, we observe that the decision relied by the assessee in the case of Vinod Kumar Solanki (supra) is pronounced on 14.08.2024 in which the similar issue of approval was considered and decided in favour of the assessee by considering the earlier decision which are also relied by the ld DR. It is also fact that the decisions relied by the ld DR were decided prior and 11 ITA No.2019/Del/2022 ITA No.2407/Del/2022 also considered the similar views by the Hon'ble High Court on the issue raised by the assessee before us. Therefore, we are bound to follow the recent decision of the Hon'ble Court and accordingly, we are inclined to decide the issue of mechanical approval that too merely recording as 'yes'. For the sake of brevity, the decision of the High Court is reproduced below:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit.Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs Smt Sandhya Sharma, New Delhi on 16 October, 2024

8. After considering the submissions of both sides, we observe that the decision relied by the assessee in the case of Vinod Kumar Solanki (supra) is pronounced on 14.08.2024 in which the similar issue of approval was considered and decided in favour of the assessee by considering the earlier decision which are also relied by the ld DR. It is also fact that the decisions relied by the ld DR were decided prior and 11 ITA No.2019/Del/2022 ITA No.2407/Del/2022 also considered the similar views by the Hon'ble High Court on the issue raised by the assessee before us. Therefore, we are bound to follow the recent decision of the Hon'ble Court and accordingly, we are inclined to decide the issue of mechanical approval that too merely recording as 'yes'. For the sake of brevity, the decision of the High Court is reproduced below:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh.Rakesh,Gurgaon vs Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon on 24 February, 2026

40 | P a g e ITA No.918/Del/2024 Sh. Rakesh 15.1 In this case, the AO had information that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs 78,25,000/- in his savings bank account with ICICI bank during financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12 and further, the assesseehad not filed his return of income. This fact has not been disputed by the assessee, whereas in the case of Vinod Kumar Solanki vs. ACIT (supra) as noted by the Hon'ble Court, the assessee had disputed about the facts noted by the AO for re-opening of the assessment which according to the assessee was based on wrong facts. The relevant facts noted by the Hon'ble Court in the said order are reproduced as under:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhey Shyam,Than Singh Nagar vs Dcit , Civic Centre on 6 March, 2026

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jbm Auto Ltd,New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-25, New Delhi on 20 April, 2026

It is also per incuriam, as while rendering the judgment in the case of Agroha Fincap Ltd.(supra), the Hon'ble High Court has not consider the prior judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Solanki vs. ACIT, reported as 166 taxmann.com 71 (Delhi). The Hon'ble High Court, in the said case, has held that granting of approval/sanction by the competent authority is neither an empty formality nor a mechanical exercise.