MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was ambiguous due to the phrase 'as amended' and lacked clear evidence of application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the approval did not specifically mention the examination of electronic evidence or adherence to legal principles for their admissibility.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and later a search operation was conducted, leading to proceedings under Section 153A. The Assessing Officer made significant additions based on electronic evidence. The assessee partly succeeded before the CIT(A), leading to cross-appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D for search assessments was valid, demonstrating proper application of mind and consideration of evidence, particularly electronic evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 153D,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 28,Section 69A,Section 69AC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar597 citing163 Taxmann.com 9 · 2024 · HC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.500 citing163 Taxmann.com 118 · 2024 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are cross appeals preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the order dated 14.02.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or 'the Ld. FAA' for short) in Appeal No.30/10035/2011-12arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refe
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Proform Interiors Private Limited, Gurgaon vs DCIT CC-20, New DelhiDelhi4 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically without independent application of mind, and often for multiple assessment years in a single approval. Consequentl...
- ACIT, Central Circle-II, Lucknow vs Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Gonda U.PLucknow11 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing a cross-objection. For most assessment years, the appeals were allowed or dismissed for statistical purposes. Some issues were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, w...
- Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited… vs DCIT, Central Circle, AllahabadAllahabad21 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D suffered from multiple infirmities, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.
- Lal Bahadur Singh, Dhanbad vs DCIT Central Circle, DhanbadRanchi9 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orde...
- Smt. Anita Devi, Patna vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, PatnaPatna29 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, lacking application of mind, and issued in a single order for multiple assessment years. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Cou...
More judgments on Section 153D
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Babita Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITA 603/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Sarat Chandra Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITA 602/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Babita Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITSSA 66/CTK/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Babita Panda, Bhubaneswar vs DCIT, Central Circle 1, BhubaneswarITSSA 65/CTK/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026