Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Agroha Fincap Ltd. - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 185 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- V. Kameswar Rao & Vinod Kumar, JJ.
- Vipul Agrawal, SSC, Ms Sakshi Shairwal, Akshat Singh, JSCs, Gaoraang Ranjan & Ms Harshita Kotru, Advs. for the Appellant.
- Arvind Kumar, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee company received share capital along with share premium. The assessee company filed its return, which was processed, and no scrutiny was conducted.
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Investigation Wing that a search operation in the case of S Group revealed that the assessee was allegedly involved in accommodation entries in the form of share capital/share premium/loans. Based on said information, AO issued a reopening notice and passed an assessment order making additions to the assessee’s income on account of unexplained credit under section 68.
On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the additions. The matter reached the Delhi Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid, as it was given mechanically without independent application of mind. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Revenue filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the issue is whether the use of the language ”Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case for re-opening of the assessment under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148” meets the requirement of proper approval by the Competent Authority.
The Tribunal clearly erred in failing to appreciate the above language used by the Competent Authority in granting approval. The single-line approval satisfies the mandate of section 151 in this case. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal allowing the assessee’s appeal was untenable and liable to be set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Pr.CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 651 of 2015, dated 11-01-2016 (para 19) followed
- Pr. CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649/391 ITR 11 (Delhi) (para 18) distinguished
- Agroha Fincap Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 2859(Delhi) of 2022, dated 7-7-2023] (para 20) set aside
List of Cases Referred to
- Pr. CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 649/391 ITR 11 (Delhi) (para 8)
- GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19/[2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) (para 8)
- Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 308/165 ITD 260 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) (para 10)
- Pr. CIT v. Pioneer Town Planners (P.) Ltd. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 652/465 ITR 356 (Delhi) (para 10)
- PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 651 of 2015, dated 11-01-2016] (para 10)
- SBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 113/[2025] 475 ITR 360 (Delhi) (para 10).
The post Single-Line Approval Valid if Shows Satisfaction for Reopening Assessment u/s 151 | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
