JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), MORADABAD V. RITA KHANNA, MORADABAD

ITA 976/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals related to the same assessee, Rita Khanna, concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The appeals arose from the order of the CIT(A), Lucknow-3, which was challenged by both the assessee and the Revenue. The primary legal issue was the validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The assessee contended that the assessment order was jurisdictionally flawed as it was passed without valid approval under section 153D. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the lack of valid approval and found that the combined approval sought for multiple years was not in accordance with the law, thus vitiating the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38244 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT, PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd., ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL GOEL
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member ITA No. 928/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Rita Khanna, A-40, Ganghi Nafar, Gandhi Nagar, Moradabad, U.P.-244001 Vs DCIT (Central), Moradabad, U.P.-244001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJYPK7072P ITA No. 976/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 JCIT(OSD), Moradabad, U.P.-244001 Vs Rita Khanna, A-40, Ganghi Nafar, Gandhi Nagar, Moradabad, U.P.-244001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJYPK7072P Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sunil Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 928/Del/2024 and the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 976/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20 arise against the CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059018154(1) dated 22.12.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. ITA Nos. 928 & 976/Del/2024 Rita Khanna 2 3. This assessee raises her additional ground in ITA No. 928/Del/2024 reading as under: “That impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO (ACIT/DCIT Central, Moradabad) dated 13.04.2021 as partly sustained by Ld. CIT-A are void ab initio and is jurisdictionally flawed as said assessment order is passed without valid approval u/s 153D and therefore impugned assessment order and first appeal order may please quashed for total want of valid/requisite approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 13.04.2021, in consequence to the search action herein dated 17.01.2019, on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the instant legal ground sought to be raised at the assessee’s behest goes to the root of the matter and therefore, we quote National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC); as considered in Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (SB) (Mum), that such an additional ground could very well be allowed to be raised in section 254(1) proceedings, in order to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts form part of the records. 5. 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 ITA Nos. 928 & 976/Del/2024 Rita Khanna 3 sought the prescribed authority’s approval on 26.03.2021 which stood granted on 07.04.2021. The clinching fact emanating from page 4 & 5 in the assessee’s paper book is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for 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 therefrom to quash the impugned assessment framed herein in assessee’s case in assessment year 2019-20 in very terms. 6. As a result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No. 928/Del/2024 challenging the impugned assessment succeeds and the Revenue’s cross appeal ITA No. 976/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2019-20 fails therefore. 7. All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic. 8. To sum up, this assessee’s appeal ITA No. 928/Del/2024 is allowed and the Revenue’s cross appeal ITA No. ITA Nos. 928 & 976/Del/2024 Rita Khanna 4 976/Del/2024 is dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28/03/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "