Approval for reassessment under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act must be granted after a conscious application of mind; a mechanical approval or merely writing 'Yes' without considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer vitiates the jurisdiction and invalidates the entire reassessment proceeding.

ORDER

PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the assessment order.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was not justified in sustaining the assessment order dated 18th December, 2017 passed by Ld. AQ without service of notice u/s 148 upon the appellant in accordance to condition precedent in section 282 of I.T.Act, 1961, therefore, assessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the sanction giving by the Ld. PCIT, Agra u/s 151 of 1.T.Act, 1961 whereas it was wrong, giving in the machinal manner without application of independent mind

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,94,392 being 5% of the total shares transactions of Rs. 71,88,78,458 made by the Ld. AO on the basis of theoretical and unilateral observation, surmises and conjecture, therefore, entire addition of Rs. 34,94,392 deserve to be deleted.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 being initial money invested/deposit in shares transaction made by the Ld. AO on the basis of his subjective opinion and wrongly drawn unilateral inference which is liable to be deleted.

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, without providing any documents from the assessment records whereas application was filed in this score, absence of these documents the appellant could not defend his case properly in the appeal, whereas the learned CIT (A) was fully conversant with this fact, passed ex-parte appeal order is bad in law and liable to be restore back the matter.

7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the levy of interest of Rs. 9,07,139/- u/s 234A and Rs. 9,69,700 under section 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO regarding initiation of provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of I.T.Act, 1961 in the appellant case.

9. That the appeal as well as assessment order are against the law and facts of the case.

10. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the Grounds of Appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal.”

2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is with the delay of 26 days. In this regard, he submitted that the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, submitted that the assessee has not received the appellate order due to it was not served on the assessee in his email ID or to his address. He submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and delay in filing the above appeal without there being any malafide intention to delay or defer the appeal. He prayed that the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, Ld. DR has not raised any specific objection to the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee with delay of 26 days is condoned as the reason given in the application is rea