Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19, challenging the validity of assessments framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act. The ground for challenge was that the prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval as required by Section 153D of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer from the prescribed authority was a common approval for seven assessees for seven assessment years. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such a combined approval vitiates the entire assessment.
Key Issues
Whether a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years from the prescribed authority under Section 153D renders the subsequent assessment invalid.
Sections Cited
143(3), 153A, 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 ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Anju Vs DCIT, House No. 4, Krishna Garden Central Circle, Ganga Nagar, Meerut-250001 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AYWPA9580D Assessee by : Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A), Kanpur-4’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2022–23/1042889859(1) dated 20.04.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”)
Heard both the parties at length. Case file 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 18.12.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated 16.06.2017 on
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 12.12.2019. The clinching fact emanating from the approval letter is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for seven assessees for seven assessment years from 2012-13 to 2018-19 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 year 2018-19 in very terms.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.