ANUJ NAGPAL ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 10 (1) , DELHI

The issues involved in all captioned appeals are identical, interlinked and inter-connected, therefore, they have been heard together and accordingly, adjudicated by a common order.

All these appeals are delayed by 273 days for which an affidavit was submitted algonwtih prayer for condonation of delay in filing these appeals.

Ld. AR for the assessee stated in the petition that the assessee has given the papers to the office of Counsel however, due to oversight by the Office Clerk, the same was skipped from the mind of the Counsel and therefore, delay was occurred in filing the appeals by 273 days. Under these circumstances, it is requested to condone the delay in filing the appeals being bonafide and having sufficient reasons.

Per contra, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the appeals for all years.

After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeals for all assessment years, delayed by 273 days each. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against him. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice and respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471(SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeals and all appeals of the assessee are taken for adjudication.

In all the appeals, though they were decided by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte however, the assessee has raised one legal ground of appeal challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the reason that the approval granted by the Adl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Dehi dt. 30.12.20219 u/s 153D of the

First, we take appeal in ITA No. 9022/Del/2025 for AY 2015-16 in the case of Anuj Nagpal.

Before us the learned A/R for the assessee, in support of the ground of appeal No. 2 submits that the Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi by a common letter dt. 30.12.2019 for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19 has granted approval in the case of assessee. Ld. AR submits that vide this letter, common approval was granted by the Adl. CIT for 28 cases for various assessment years and no reference is made about the material sent by the AO or examined by the Adl. CIT before according the approval to the draft assessment order in all the case. AS per ld. AR such common approval is granted in mechanical manner, without application of mind and such approval is a non-est in the eyes of law and vitiates the entire assessment itself.

The Ld. CIT DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and objected to the submissions of the ld. AR. He submitted that 153D approval is not applicable

Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessment framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act. We may reproduce the approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, which read as under:

We find that in the case of ACIT, Circle1(2) vs. M/s Serajudeen and Co., the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue against the order dated 15-03-2023 in ITA No. 43/2022 wherein the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in ITA No. 39 to 45/2022 held that: “22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional CIT. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. As explained in the above cases the mere repeating of the words of the statute, or mere rubber stamping of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like see or approved will not satisfied the requirement of law.” 13. We further find that in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -15 v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that : “17. Notable, the order of approval dated 30-12-2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 to 2017- 18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fail to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned

We observe that learned Assessing Officer had sought the prescribed authority’s approval on 30.12.2019 which stood granted on the very same day i.e. on 30.12.2019 in the cases of 28 different assessee for various assessment years. It is also relevant to note that int eh case of Anu Nagpal, the coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal for AY 2018-19 in ITA No. 3843/Del/2024 vide order dt. 16.04.2025 has already held the same approval as defective and quashed the entire assessment proceedings, copy of the said order is placed at pages 12-22 of PB. Further in the case of Prateek Nagpal, in whose case approval was granted by the same order, the coordinate Delhi bench of ITAT, in ITA Nos. 466,521 & 522/Del/2022 for AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 respectively, vide order dt. 10.01.2025 has quashed the assessment order passed on such defective approval.

In the present case, the sole issue is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for the 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

Regarding the recent amendment introducing new section 292BC of the Act, wherein it is provided that no order should be held as invalid for any defective approval. However, such amendment is applicable for the approval granted on or after 01.04.2021 whereas, in the instant case as observed above, the ld. Adl. CIT has granted the approval u/s 153D of the Act on 30.12.2029 which incidentally be prior to 01.04.2021 thus the aforesaid amendment is not applicable to the present case. So far as the submission of ld. CIT DR that a request has been made to constitute the special bench, form the perusal of the list appended of 232 cases, it is observed that the case of the assessee is not referred by the revenue. In view of the facts as narrated above, the Ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Since we have already allowed the Ground of appeal No. 2 and quashed the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the final result, all the appeals of Shri Anuj Nagpal in ITA Nos 9026, 9030/Del/2025 for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 and ITA Nos. 9023 & 9027/Del/2025 for AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 in the case of Anu Nagpal respectively, are allowed.