Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed five appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 to 2019-20. The assessments were framed under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search action.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessments were vitiated because the Assessing Officer sought a common approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D of the Act, which is not permissible. Therefore, the impugned assessments were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether a common approval under Section 153D for multiple assessment years vitiates the assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
153A, 144, 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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Parveen Tayal, Vs DCIT, H. No. 246/G, 1st Floor, Sector-10, Circle-2, DLF, Faridabad, Haryana-121006 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGRPT5617P Assessee by : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Adjournment Application by CIT-DR (Rejected) Date of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s five appeals in ITA Nos. 1924 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.
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.
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.