TRISHUL HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 , DELHI

ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2017-18
TRISHUL HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE
PRIVATE LIMITED,
101-102, 3 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
PAN No.AAECT5592R
बनाम
Vs.
DCIT,
Central Circle-31, Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent

Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Advocate
Shri Ayush Garg, CA
Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
16.12.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 16.12.2025

आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. These are batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee and for the sake of convenience they are being disposed of through a common order.
1.1
The appeal for AY 2015-16 (ITA No.501/Del/2025) arises from order dated 20.11.2024 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-25. The appeal for AY 2017-18
(ITA No.502/Del/2025) arises from order dated 22.11.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-25. In this case, the AO is seen to ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

have passed orders u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for both the years, consequent to a search on the business premises of the assessee on 14.09.2017. The Ld. AO made several additions,on the basis of material and information available with him.
1.2
The aggrieved assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed,on the basis of findings given, after relying on a number of authorities, on pages 30 to 34 of the impugned order.
1.3
Further aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal of which ground no.4 in ITA 501 and ground no.6 in ITA 502 have been requested to be adjudicated first. Both of these grounds in both the years challenge the alleged improper approval granted u/s 153D of the Act.
2. Before us, the Ld. AR placed copies of the proposal sent by the AO
(dated 30.12.2019 and the approval given by the Ld. Addl./CIT, Central
Range-8, New Delhi also dated 30.12.2019). The Ld. AR explained that these documents could be obtained under the Right to Information Act,
2005. For the sake of record the two documents need to be extracted: -

ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025
on the same date as the proposal, it was also bunched up. It was the submission that such approval is not valid in the eyes of law considering a ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

host of judicial pronouncement, especially the case of Shiv Kumar
Nayyar reported in 467 ITR 186 (Del). The Ld. AR also read extensively from written submissions, which for the sake of convenience deserve to be extracted with respect to relevant portions thereon: -
“1. The present appeals pertain to the assessment orders passed under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18. 2. In this regard, it is important to refer to the relevant provision of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 153D is reproduced below for ready reference:
“No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.”
3. Based on the above, it can be concluded that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the mandatory prior approval in accordance to the provision of section 153D of the Act.
4. This approval must not be a mere formality — it must be granted after due application of mind to each assessment year separately, based on examination of the material and draft orders placed before the approving authority.
5. It is a settled position in law that statutory approval granted by the authority u/s 153D of the Act enabling the Id. AO to complete the search assessment, should be given after due application of mind. Thus, approval under section 153D of the Act, cannot be granted in the mechanical manner.
6. The Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Shiv
Kumar Nayyar in 2024 (6) TMI 29, dated 15.05.2024, has held that ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

the approval u/s 153D of the Act has to be granted for each
Assessment year independently. The relevant observations of the judgement of Hon’ble High Court are as under:
"11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for "each assessment year" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine
All 1294] which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and moresignificantly, the import of the phrase- "each assessment year" used in the language of Section 153D of the Act.
The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as under:-
"13. It was held therein that if an approval has been granted by the Approving Authority in a mechanical manner without application of mind then the very purpose of obtaining approval under Section 153D of the Act and mandate of the enactment by the legislature will be defeated. For granting approval under Section 153D of the Act, the Approving Authority shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record for "each assessment year" in respect of "each assessee" separately. The words 'each assessment year' used in Section 153D and 153A have been considered to hold that effective and proper meaning has to be given so that underlying legislative intent as per scheme of assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was held that the "approval" as contemplated under 153D of the Act, requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing the assessment. The approval, thus, cannot be a mere formality and, in any case, cannot be a mechanical exercise of power.
***
19. The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing
Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A."
12. It is observed that the Court in the case ofSapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord approval mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible for the said authority to have perused and appraised the records of 85 cases in a single day. It was explicitly held that the authority granting

ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

approval has to apply its mind for "each assessment year" for "each assessee" separately.
13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa High
Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC On Line Ori 992] to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no. 22 of the said decision reads as under:-
"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 Commissioner of Income-tax.
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 "seen" or "approved" will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in the context of section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply to section153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (i) the Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order "well in time". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in writing
; (Hi) the fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order."
14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case of Serajuddin (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023. 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj
Bansal (supra),whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind.
16. In the present case, the IT AT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:-
****

ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

ITA Nos.501 & 502/Del/2025

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2025 (MAHAVIR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 02.01.2026
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.