BEENA ,MEERUT V. DCIT,CC , GZBD

ITA 22/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Beena Devi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4, which arose from an assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. The primary contention was regarding the mechanical and consolidated manner in which the approval for the search assessment order was granted under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee and found that the consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and assessees was procedurally incorrect, leading to the quashing of the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713125 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGINI HANDA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 22/Del/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Beena Devi, House No. 4, Krishna Garden, Ganga Nagar, Meerut 250001 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: BITPB4687C Assessee by : Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Revenue by: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 22/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19, arises out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT’, in short] in Appeal No. CIT(A)- IV.KNP/10593/2019-20 dated 14.12.2021 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The assessee has raised an additional ground vide letter dated 24.03.2025 stating that the approval for the search assessment order was granted by the ld Additional Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 153D of the Act in a mechanical manner and that such approval was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 22/Del/2022 Beena Page | 2 consolidated approval for all assessment years put together which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 153D of the Act. This issue goes to the root of the matter and accordingly the additional ground is hereby admitted and taken up first for adjudication. 3. At the outset, we find that the approval of the draft assessment order was sought by the ld AO u/s 153D of the Act from the ld Addl. CIT, Central Range, Meerut vide letter dated 06.12.2019. The approval was sought by the ld AO for 8 assessees for AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19. The approval u/s 153D of the Act was granted by the ld Addl. CIT on 12.12.2019 for 7 assessees for all the assessment years put together. For the sake of convenience, the said approval is reproduced herein below:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 22/Del/2022 Beena Page | 3 4. From the above, it could be seen that the ld Addl. CIT had granted a consolidated approval for all the assessment years put together and for 7 assessees together. Totally 49 approvals were given by the ld Addl. CIT comprising of 7 assessees for 7 AYs. Provisions of Section 153D of the Act insist approval to be given for each assessment year separately. The issue of granting a consolidated approval was subject matter of adjudication by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del HC) and Hon’ble Orrisa High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co. reported in 454 ITR 312(Ori), wherein it was held that combined approval granted u/s 153D of the Act for various AYs for framing assessment order vitiates the entire assessment itself. Respectfully following the same, we quash the assessment framed in the instant case. The ld DR placed on record the written submission of the ld AO wherein, it was submitted that the approval u/s 153D of the Act is directory and not mandatory in nature. We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept to this proposition of the ld DR and the ld AO as the approval u/s 153D of the Act is statutory approval to be given by a quasi judicial authority after due application of mind by following due judicial process. Hence, it cannot be by any stretch of imagination be construed as directory in nature. In fact the ld AO is restricted from passing any assessment order pursuant to the search unless he gets prior approval u/s 153D of the Act from the ld Addl. CIT. When this is the language of the statute, it cannot be held to be not mandatory. Hence, the objections of the ld DR are hereby dismissed and additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 22/Del/2022 Beena Page | 4 5. Since the entire assessment is quashed, the adjudication of other grounds raised by the assessee become academic in nature and they are left open. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/07/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "