ITO WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR V. SHRI SANTOSH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA, LATUR

MA 36/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur as the applicant and Shri Santosh Subhashappa Mukta as the respondent, concerning the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications against the Tribunal's earlier decision which quashed the assessments for these years. The Tribunal had found that the conditional approval under section 153D for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 was not legally compliant as it was granted collectively rather than individually for each year. The Revenue's argument that a common approval suffices for issues spanning multiple years was rejected based on precedents that require individual scrutiny and approval for each assessment year.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839909 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar
• Laws Referred To: Section 153D of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODOL RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 (Arising out of IT(SS)A Nos.18, 19 & 20/PUN/2021) Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2014-15 ITO, Ward-1, Latur Vs. Shri Santosh Subhashappa Mukta 1, Omerga Road, Ujani Corner, Ausa, Latur – 413520, Maharashtra PAN: AJRPM7166R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh Department by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR Date of hearing : 20-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 23-02-2026 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above three Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Tribunal vide IT(SS)A Nos.18 to 20/PUN/2021 for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 respectively. 2. The Ld. DR referring to the contents of the Miscellaneous Applications drew the attention of the Bench to the same which read as under: Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 3. He submitted that the contents of the MA are self-explanatory and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal should be recalled. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while opposing the MA filed by the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal at para 4 of the order while dismissing the appeal has not only considered the approval granted u/s 153D as conditional one but also has found the same to be a common order for the assessment years from 2008-09 to 2014-15. He submitted that the Tribunal, Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 following the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta reported in (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288 (All), PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta reported in (2023) 450 ITR 534 (All) and PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del), has held that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has to be granted on standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year. Since in the instant case the JCIT has given a common approval for all the three years, therefore, on this count, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee by quashing all the assessments for all the three assessment years on the ground that such approval granted u/s 153D is not in accordance with law. Since the Revenue has not raised any grounds in the MA on this issue, therefore, such MA is liable to be dismissed. 5. The Ld. DR in his rejoinder submitted that if the issues are common for all the years, then one common approval is sufficient. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. We find the Tribunal, apart from quashing the assessments holding the approval given by the JCIT as conditional one, has also held that the JCIT has given a common approval for all the impugned assessment years i.e. 2008-09 to 2014-15. Accordingly, the Tribunal, following the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta (supra), PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta (supra) and PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) held that the approval given u/s 153D by the JCIT is not in accordance with law since a common approval has been Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 given for all the years instead of for each assessment year separately. Since nothing has been brought against the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court holding that a common approval u/s 153D is not in accordance with law and the JCIT / Addl.CIT has to give his approval u/s 153D for each assessment year separately, therefore, the MAs filed by the Revenue are liable to be quashed. The MAs filed by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, all the three Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 23rd February, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. 5. The Pr. CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA Nos.35 to 37/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 20.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 20.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "