Loading judgment…
Facts
These appeals arise from orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2009-10, initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act following a search action. The core issue is the validity of the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessees under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed.
Key Issues
The primary issue is the validity of the Section 153D approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessees in a consolidated manner.
Sections Cited
153A, 254, 153D, 1961
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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Bindia Chhabra, Vs DCIT, 101, Jyoti Bhawan, Commercial Central Circle-05, Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi-110055 Delhi-110009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADOPVC9460F Assessee by : Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Sh. Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These twin assessee’s as many appeals & 2369/Del/2025, for Assessment Year 2009-10, arise against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073412762(1) dated 18.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned assessments framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 254 of the Act; dated 29.04.2024, in consequence to the search action herein dated 14.07.2011 on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act.
A combined perusal of the case records further indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had sought the prescribed authority’s combined section 153D approval involving total seven assessees which stood accepted on the very day dated 28.03.2014. We thus 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 to quash the impugned assessments framed in assessees’ cases. The Revenue’s vehement arguments in support thereof stand declined in very terms.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.