PARVEEN TAYAL,FARIDABAD HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE 2, FARIDABAD HARYANA

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.