AAKIL KHAN,OLD FARIDABAD V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

ITA 2577/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals filed by different assessees against the assessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Noida, for various assessment years following a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue was the validity of the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, which were challenged as being mechanical and without proper examination of the facts. The Tribunal, referencing several judicial precedents, concluded that the approvals were indeed granted without proper application of mind, leading to the quashing of the assessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474882 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, Mysore Finlease Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors., ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., Pr. CIT vs. Anuj Bansal, Pr. CIT vs. Subodh Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR BHARATI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 43; 153C

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12) ITA No. 2585/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) ITA No. 2586/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No. 2587/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Dinesh Kumar Tyagi C/o. M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: ADQPT4982M Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2588/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITA No. 2589/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No. 2590/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) ITA No. 2591/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) ITA No. 2592/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No. 2593/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Dinesh Tyagi L/H of Sh. Ved Prakash Tyagi, Faridabad C/o. M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: ADQPT4981J Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent 2 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. ITA No. 4509/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Tyagi M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AHJPT7564J Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2579/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Pradeep Tyagi M/s RRA Taxindia, D- 28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AHJPT7564J Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2582/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Munijhar M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AUHPM7589F Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2594/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Saurabh Tyagi L/H Late Sh. Gaurav Tyagi, Faridabad M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: APTPT8731R Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent 3 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. ITA No. 2577/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) Aakil Khan M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: BGSPA6393K Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2578/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Chanda Ram M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi PAN: BXEPR4414D Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2580/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Pooja Devi C/o. M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28 South Exention,Part-1, New Delhi PAN: BIZPD4522Q Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent ITA No. 2581/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Jai Prakash Tyagi C/o. M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28 South Exention,Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AUBPT2329N Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent 4 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. ITA No. 2595/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Saurabh Tyagi C/o. M/s RRA Taxindia, D-28 South Exention,Part-1, New Delhi PAN: AATPT8725K Vs. DCIT Central Circle Noida Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Deepesh Garg, adv Revenue by Sh. Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 ORDER PER BENCH: The above 18 Appeals are filed by the different Assessees for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15 and one appeal filed by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 challenging the different orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, dated 25/02/2019. 2. Though the Assessee has raised several different Grounds of appeal in the respective Appeal, an additional Ground of appeal under Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been filed in all the appeals which reads as under: - “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/153A is bad in law inter-alia for the reason that no valid approval u/s 153D has been obtained form the prescribed authority in accordance with law.” 5 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 3. In all the above Appeals the assessment proceedings have been initiated against the Assessees pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) dated 15/10/2013 on the premises of a comprising Dkrrish Group of cases. In all the above cases, an approval u/s 153D has been issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Meerut pursuant to the office letter of the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida/A.O. The Ld. JCIT has accorded different approvals u/s 153D of the Act. Pursuant to the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act, the assessment proceedings have been initiated and the assessment orders have been passed against the Assessees respectively. As against the assessment orders, the Assessees have preferred respective Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeals of the Assessees vide order dated 25/02/2019, which were called in question before us in respective Appeals filed by the Assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the Appeal of Mr. Pradeep Tyagi for Assessment Year 2012-13 and aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessee Mr. Pradeep Tyagi as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us. 6 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 5. Since, all the captioned Appeals are emerging out of single search and seizure operation and considering the issue to be decided in the above Appeals, the captioned Appeals are clubbed and heard together. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on the additional grounds of Appeal, vehemently submitted that in all the above cases the assessment proceedings have been initiated pursuant to invalid approvals granted u/s 153D of the Act by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that as per u/s 153D of the Act, the Ld. JCIT is required to verify the issues raised by the Ld. A.O. in the draft assessment order, apply his mind and ascertain whether the entire facts have been appreciated properly by the Ld. A.O. together with the supporting evidences. The procedure of granting approval by the Ld. JCIT is a quasi-judicial function, which has to be performed based on sound reasoning on due examination of the seized documents, replies filed by the Assessee and the draft assessment order of the Ld. A.O. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that in the case of Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Ved Prakash Tyagi represented by his legal heir Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Pradeep Tyagi, Munijhar and Gaurav Tyagi represented by his legal heir Saurabh Tyagi, the Ld. JCIT while granting approval specifically mentioned that he had no time for proper examination of facts of the 7 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. case/further enquiry. Further submitted that, it is highly impossible for the Ld. JCIT to grant approval to all the Assessment Years in respect of different Assessees comprising various issues the very same day. Apart from the same, the Ld. Counsel further submitted that all the approvals accorded in single and consolidated manner for different Assessment years. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the approval granted in all the above cases cannot be treated as a valid approval contemplated u/s 153D of the Act and consequentially, submitted that the entire assessment framed in the hands of the respective Assessees in the years under consideration requires to be quashed as void ab- initio. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements: • Pr. CIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, ITA No. 285/2024 & CM Appl. 28994/2024, dated 15.05.2024 (Del). (Copy filed to Hon'ble Bench and Ld. DR in court during the course of hearing on 16.01.2025). • Pr. CIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1282- 1285/2020, 1078/2021 and 1867/2021, dated 26.07.2023 (Del). (CLC 172-190) • Mysore Finlease Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors., ITA No. 8821/2019 & Ors., dated 10.01.2024 (Del). (CLC 191- 212) • ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., SLP(C) 44989/2023, dated 28.11.2023 (SC). (CLC 171) • ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., (2023) 454 ITR 0312 (Orissa). (CLC 161-170) • Pr. CIT vs. Anuj Bansal, ITA No. 368/2023, dated 13.07.2023 (Del). (CLC 153-156) 8 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. • Pr. CIT vs. Anuj Bansal, ITA No. 537/2023, dated 19.09.2023 (Del). (CLC 157-160) • Pr. CIT vs. Subodh Agarwal, (2023) 149 taxmann.com 373, (All). (CLC 213-217) 9. Though we have granted time to Ld. Department's Representative to file written submission in writing no submission has been filed by the Ld. Department's Representative. It is the case of the Department that the role of ld. JCIT, Central Range is totally different from the role of a JCIT in the normal range. Further submitted that in the Central Range, the ld. JCIT is involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing and is involved with the Ld. AO from time to time while issuing various questionnaires. The ld. JCIT in Central Range also examined the seized documents in detail in respect of each Assessment Years immediately after receipt of the appraisal report and provided able assistance to the Ld. AO about the interpretation of the said seized documents while issuing questionnaires to Assessees, examining the replies filed by the Assessees and drawing conclusions thereon. Thus, submitted that it is very easy for the ld. JCIT to grant approval of the draft assessment order on the same day since the Ld. JCIT is involved with the assessment proceedings right from the inception. Therefore, submitted that the by contention of the Assessee's Representative that the Ld. JCIT has given mechanical approval has no force. 9 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 10. Further, the Ld. DR vehemently argued that bare reading of provisions of section 153D of the Act, which provides only about existence of approval from the ld. JCIT. There is no mention of application of mind on the part of the ld. JCIT or the approving authority in the said section. The expression “application of mind” is only provided by the judicial decisions and not provided in the statute. Further submitted that, the literal interpretation is to be given to the provisions of section 153D of the Act which does not provide for application of mind of the approving authority and hence any other interpretation contrary to the same would only result in re-writing the law. The Ld DR also argued that in some of the cases the Assessee files details at the last moment and that is why the approval is obtained from ld JCIT in the last moment. The Ld. Department's Representative has also submitted that the additional Ground challenging the approval issued u/s 153D of the Act has not been raised before the Ld. CIT(A), which cannot be raised before the Tribunal in the belated stage. Thus, the Ld. Department's Representative sought for dismissal of the Additional Grounds of Appeal challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act. Though we have granted time to Ld. Department's Representative to file written submission in writing no submission has been filed by the Ld. Department's Representative. 10 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In all above cases the assessment proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the approval u/s 153D of the Act accorded by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Meerut. In the case of Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Ved Prakash Tyagi represented by his legal heir Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Pradeep Tyagi, Munijhar and Gaurav Tyagi represented by his legal heir Saurabh Tyagi, the Ld. JCIT while granting approval specifically mentioned that he had no time for proper examination of facts of the case/further enquiry. The seal reflected on the approval accorded in the above cases reads as under: - “Draft assessment order received Late i.e. on 31/03/2016 Beyond the time as per internal Action Plan. And thus having a very little time/almost no time for proper Examination of facts of the case/further enquiries etc. Sd- For J.C.I.T., Central Range (Meerut)\" 12. From the above, it is evident that the draft assessment order has been received belatedly on 31/03/2016, which is beyond the time as per the internal action plan and the Ld. JCIT had very little time or almost no time for proper examination. However, the approval has been granted in stereotype manner without examining the facts of the case. Apart from the same, in all the above cases, a single approval has been granted for various Assessment Years. 11 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while examining the similar issue in the case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT considered all the judicial pronouncements on the issue held as under: - “8. We find as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the ld. JCIT, in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a mandatory requirement of law. The said approval granting proceedings by the ld. JCIT is a quasi judicial proceeding requiring application of mind by the ld. JCIT judiciously. In order to ensure smooth implementation of the aforesaid provisions, in consonance with the true spirit of the scheme of the Act, it is the bounden duty of the Ld. AO to seek to place the draft assessment order together with copies of the seized documents before the ld. JCIT well in time much before the due date of completion of search assessment. The ld. JCIT is supposed to examine the seized documents, questionnaires raised by the Ld. AO on the assessee seeking explanation of contents in the seized documents, replies filed by the assessee in response to the questionnaires issued by the Ld. AO and the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO vis- à-vis the said seized documents after considering the reply of the assessee. All these functions, as stated earlier, are to be performed by the ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind. Even though as vehemently argued by the Ld. CIT-DR, the ld. JCIT is involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing, still, the ld. JCIT, while granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act has to independently apply his mind dehors the conclusions drawn either by the Investigation Wing in the appraisal report or by the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order. The copy of the appraisal report submitted by the Investigation Wing to the Ld. AO and ld. JCIT are merely guidance to the Ld. AO and are purely internal correspondences on which the assessee does not have any access. Moreover, the Act mandates the Ld. AO to frame the assessment after getting prior approval from ld. JCIT u/s 12 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 153D of the Act. The ld. JCIT getting involved in the search assessment proceedings right from inception does not have any support from the provisions of the Act as no where the Act mandates so. The scheme of the Act mandates due application of mind by the Ld. AO to examine the seized documents independently dehors the appraisal report of the Investigation Wing and seek explanation/clarifications from the assessee on the contents of the seized documents. When the scheme of the Act provides for a leeway to both the Ld. AO as well as the ld. JCIT to even ignore the conclusions drawn in the appraisal report by the Investigation Wing and take a different stand in the assessment proceedings, the fact of ld. JCIT getting involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the receipt of copy of appraisal report, as argued by the Ld. CIT DR, has no substance. In other words, irrespective of the conclusions drawn in the appraisal report by the Investigation Wing, both the Ld. AO and the ld. JCIT are supposed to independently apply their mind in a judicious way before drawing any conclusions on the contents of the seized documents while framing the search assessments. As far as the argument of the Ld. CIT DR that the details were normally filed by the assessee at the last moment is concerned, the ld. AO has got every right to reject the said replies if not filed within the stipulated time. It is not the case of the revenue that the details were filed by the assessee in the instant case at the last moment. Even if it is so, as stated above, it is the prerogative of the ld. AO to accept the said letter containing details or reject the same as it was not filed within the stipulated time. On the contrary, if the ld. AO himself grants time to the assessee to furnish the details till the last moment, then no fault could be attributed to the assessee. In such circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is that the ld. AO is not serious about the statutory deadlines provided in the Act. In our considered opinion, if the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR are to be appreciated that the ld. JCIT need not apply his mind while granting approval of the draft assessment orders u/s 153D of the Act as it is not provided in section 153D of the Act, then it would make the entire approval proceedings contemplated u/s 153D of the Act otiose. The law provides only the Ld. AO to frame the assessment, but, certain checks and balances are provided in the Act by conferring powers on the ld. JCIT to grant judicious 13 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. approval u/s 153D of the Act to the draft assessment orders placed by the Ld. AO. 9. Let us now examine whether in the aforesaid background of the scheme of the Act, whether the approval in terms of section 153D of the Act has been granted by the ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind or not, in the instant case. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. JCIT on 27.03.2015 u/s 153D of the Act. The said approval letter clearly states that a letter dated 27.03.2015 was filed by the Ld. AO before the ld. JCIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. JCIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment order on the very same day i.e. on 27.03.2015 for various assessment years for 232 files on a single day. In any event, whether is it humanly possible for an approving authority like the ld. JCIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for all the assessment years on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, we find that similar issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anju Bansal in ITA 368/2023 order dated 13.07.2023 wherein, under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court categorically held that statutory approval given by a quasi judicial authority without due application of mind as contemplated in section 153D of the Act would be fatal to the entire search assessment proceedings. The relevant operative part of the said order is reproduced below:- \"12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The Tribunal, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of mind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said error. 12.1 More particularly, the Tribunal notes that all that was looked at by the ACIT, was the draft assessment order. 13. In another words, it was emphasised that the approval was granted without examining the assessment record or the search material. The relevant observations made in this behalf by the Tribunal in the impugned order are extracted hereafter: 14 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. \"17.1 However, in the present case, we have no hesitation in stating that there is complete non -application of mind by the Learned Addl. CIT before granting the approval. Had there been application of mind, he would not have approved the draft assessment order, where the returned income of Rs.87,20,580/ -, Similarly, when the total assessed income as per the AO comes to Rs. 16,69,42,560/-, the Addl. CIT could not have approved the assessed income at Rs. 1,65,07,560/ - had he applied his mind. The addition of Rs. 15,04,35,000/ - made by the AO in the instant case is completely out of the scene in the final assessed income shows volumes . 17.2 Even the factual situation is much worse than the facts decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal (supra). In that case, at least the assessment folders were sent whereas in the instant case, as appears from the letter of the Assessing Offi cer seeking approval, he has sent only the draft assessment order without any assessment records what to say about the search material. As mentioned earlier, there are infirmities in the figures of original return of income as well as total assessed and the Addl. CIT while giving his approval has not applied Page | 10 SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd his mind to the figures mentioned by the AO. Therefore, approval given in the instant case by the Addl. CIT, in our opinion, is not valid in the eyes of law. We, therefore, hold that approval given u/s 153D has been granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind and thus it is invalid and bad in law and consequently vitiated the assessment order for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The ground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\". [Emphasis is ours] 14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial question of law ari ses for our consideration. 15 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are findings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The Tribunal was right that there was absence of application of mi nd by the ACIT in granting approval under Section 153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which could be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act. 16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\" 10. The ld. AR also placed on record the recent decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163taxmann.com9 (Del) wherein it was held that where order of approval u/s 153D of the Act for relevant assessment year was granted by Additional Commissioner who had granted approval for 43 cases on a single day without perusing the draft assessment orders at all and without an independent application of mind, impugned assessment order was rightly declared to be illegal by Tribunal. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has been granted by the ld. JCIT in the instant case before us in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, thereby making the approval proceedings by a high ranking authority, an empty ritual. Such an approval has neither been mandated by the provisions of the Act nor endorsed by the decisions of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court (Delhi High Court) referred to supra. Hence, we find lot of force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR in support of the ground raised in the Cross Objections of the assessee. Hence the assessment framed for the Asst Year 2013-14 by the ld. AO is hereby declared as void abinitio and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection is hereby allowed. 12. Since, pursuant to the allowing of the Cross Objections of the assessee, the entire assessment framed in the hands of the assessee is to be declared illegal and bad in law, the other 16 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. legal grounds and grounds on merits raised by the assessee as well as by the revenue need not be gone into, as adjudication of the same would be merely academic in nature and, hence, they are left open. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, cross objections of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 14. Considering the fact that the Ld. JCIT accorded the approval u/s 153D of the Act on the very same day, wherein admitted the scarcity of time for examination of facts of the case/further enquiry etc. and also considering the fact that consolidated single approval has been granted for different Assessment Years, by following the ratio laid down in the case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we allow the Additional Ground of Appeal challenging the assessment order which was framed based on the invalid approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act, accordingly, we set aside all the impugned Assessment Orders in the captioned Appeals. 15. In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos. 2584/Del/2019, 2585/Del/2019, 2586/del/2019, 1587/Del/2019, 2588/Del/2019, 2589/Del/2019, 2590/Del/2019, 2591/Del/2019, 2592/Del/2019, 2593/del/2019, 2579/Del/2019, 2582/Del/2019, 2594/Del/2019,2577/Del/2019,2578/Del/2019, 2580/Del/2019, 2581/Del/2019, 2595/Del/2019 are allowed. 17 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. 16. Since we have quashed the respective assessment orders on the ground of invalid sanction accorded u/s 153D of the Act, other Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessees have not been adjudicated. 17. As we have set aside the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 4509/Del/2019 has been in-fructuous, accordingly, Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 29.01.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 18 ITA No. 2584/Del/2019 & ors Dinesh Tyagi & ors. "