MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1416/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 April 2025AY 1998-99Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had sought a common approval from the prescribed authority for seven assessees across seven assessment years (2012-13 to 2018-19) on 12.12.2019. The Tribunal, relying on the decisions in 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), concluded that such a combined approval under section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment framed for Assessment Year 2018-19. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anju, is in appeal against the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the CIT(A), Kanpur-4. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessment order under challenge was framed by the DCIT under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 18.12.2019, following a search action conducted on 16.06.2017. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer under section 153D of the Act for framing the assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the approval obtained under section 153D of the Act. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the assessment is invalid because the prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval under section 153D of the Act. The assessee's legal ground regarding the validity of the impugned assessments was admitted. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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&

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv
Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

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”)

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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

4.

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.

5.

All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →