Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals arise from orders for Assessment Year 2019-20, challenging assessments framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue concerns the validity of the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 153D.
Held
The Tribunal noted that a common approval was granted for nine assessees, which vitiated the entire assessment. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that such a combined Section 153D approval was invalid.
Key Issues
Whether a common approval under Section 153D for multiple assessees vitiates the assessment. Validity of assessments framed consequent to a search action where a combined approval was obtained.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 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 ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Pradeep Gupta, Vs DCIT, 62, East Delhi, Shiv Puri, Central Circle, New Delhi-110051 Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADYPG9996Q Assessee by : Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. & Sh. Akash Ojha, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These twin assessee’s appeals & 4126/Del/2024, for Assessment Year 2019-20, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order Nos. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1066921155(1) & 1066922407(1) dated 23.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned twin assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 24.06.2021, in consequence to the search action herein dated 30.07.2018 on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act.
It is in this factual backdrop that we admit the assessees’ identical 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 14.06.2021. The clinching fact emanating from the approval letter is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact been granted a common approval for nine assessees (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 year 2019-20 in very terms.