Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals arise from orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, which were framed under Section 153A and Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search action. The core issue is the validity of the approval obtained under Section 153D of the Act for these assessments.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained from the prescribed authority for the assessments was invalid because it was a common approval for multiple assessees and multiple assessment years. Such a combined approval vitiates the entire assessment.
Key Issues
The primary issue is the validity of the assessment orders due to a common approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessees and assessment years.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 153D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Sarita Tyagi, Vs DCIT/ACIT, Street No. 1, Bank Colony, Central Circle, Modinagar, U.P.-201201 Meerut, U.P. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABAPT9137C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 07.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.07.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals & 5077/Del/2024, for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1068703982(1) & 1068704022(1) dated 13.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 153A and u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 16.07.2021, in & 5077/Del/2024 Sarita Tyagi consequence to the search action herein dated 28.06.2018 on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act.
It is in this factual backdrop that we admit the assessee’s instant legal ground and note with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned Assessing Officer had sought the prescribed authority’s approval dated 25.06.2021. The clinching fact emanating from the approval letter is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for three assessees for seven assessment years from 2013-14 to 2019-20 which stood granted, and therefore, we quote PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del.), PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.) and ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC), to conclude that such a combined section 153D approval indeed vitiates the entire assessment itself. We draw strong support therefrom to quash the impugned assessments framed herein in assessee’s case in assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in very terms.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.