KUBER METPACK PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEVIN METPACK (P) LTD.),DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1924/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 March 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant 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 assessments framed under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AYs 2013-14 and 2016-17 to 2019-20 are invalid. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had sought a common approval from the prescribed authority under Section 153D for all seven assessment years (2013-14 to 2019-20) in a single application dated 15.04.2021. The Tribunal, relying on decisions in PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd., and ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co., concluded that such a combined approval for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed in their entirety. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Parveen Tayal, has filed five appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'C', for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2016-17 to 2019-20. These appeals are against the orders of the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, passed in proceedings under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessments were framed consequent to a search action dated 06.06.2018. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of these assessments due to alleged lack of valid approval under Section 153D of the Act. The Assessing Officer sought approval for multiple assessment years in a single application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessments framed under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid, specifically concerning the approval obtained under Section 153D of the Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessments are invalid because the prescribed authority did not accord valid approval under Section 153D. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer sought a common approval for all seven assessment years (2013-14 to 2019-20) in a single application, which vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the revenue's adjournment application was rejected, and no specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on the merits of the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 144,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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Appellant: Adv. &
For Respondent: DR (Rejected)
Hearing: 15.10.2025Pronounced: 15.10.2025

Heard together (5 matters)

ITA No. 1924/Del/2025
ITA No. 1925/Del/2025
ITA No. 1926/Del/2025
ITA No. 1927/Del/2025
ITA No. 1928/Del/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

These assessee’s five appeals in to 1928/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17 to 2019-20 arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073198902(1), 1073199328(1), 1073200361(1) & 1073847481(1) dated 30.01.2025 & 19.02.2025 in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. to 1928/Del/2025 Parveen Tayal 3. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned assessments framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act; dated 24.04.2021 and 17.05.2021 in consequence to the search action herein dated 06.06.2018 on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act.

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 15.04.2021. The clinching fact emanating from the approval letter is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for all 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 2013-14, 2016- 17 to 2019-20 in very terms.

More judgments on Section 153A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →