ADITYA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

The instant batch of eight appeals pertains to the single assessee herein namely, Sh. Aditya Sharma. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under: to 3621, 5198 & 8404/Del/2019 2 Aditya Sharma Sl. ITA Nos. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Order passed Proceedings No. against u/s 1. 3616 to 2008-09 Aditya ACIT CIT(A)-27, New 153A r.w.s. 3621/Del/2019 to Sharma Delhi Appeal No. 143(3) 2013-14 568, 575, 576, 577, 578/16-17 Dated 25.02.2019, 26 & 27.03.2019 2. 8404/Del/2019 2013-14 Aditya ACIT CIT(A)-27, New 153A r.w.s. Sharma Delhi Appeal No. 143(3) 579/16-17 Dated 26.03.2019 3. 5198/Del/2019 2013-14 DCIT Aditya CIT(A)-27, New 153A r.w.s. Sharma Delhi Appeal No. 143(3) 579/16-17 Dated 26.03.2019

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 02.03.2017, in consequence to the search action herein dated 15.02.2014, on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the instant legal ground sought to be raised at the assessee’s behest goes to the root of the matter and therefore, we quote National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC); as considered in Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (SB) (Mum), that such an additional ground could very well be allowed to be raised in section 254(1) proceedings, in order to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts form part of the records.

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 on 27.02.2017 which stood granted on 02.03.2017. The clinching fact which from page 10 in the assessee’s paper book is that the learned to 3621, 5198 & 8404/Del/2019 3 Aditya Sharma Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for all these assessment years from 2008-09 to 2013-14 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 therefrom to quash all the impugned assessments framed herein in assessee’s case in assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 in very terms.

As a result, the assessee’s quantum appeals to 3621/Del/2019 involving the corresponding impugned assessment succeed the Revenue’s cross appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 fails therefor. The assessee’s last appeal ITA No. 8404/Del/2019 also stands accepted since involving the consequential section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings. 5.1 All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.

To sum up, these assessee’s seven appeals to 3621 & 8404/Del/2019 are allowed and the Revenue’s cross appeal ITA No. 5198/Del/2019 is dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15/01/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 15/01/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*