M/S ATUL KUMAR BANSAL,NEW DELHI V. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1695/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by both the assessee, Atul Kumar Bansal, and the revenue, ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi. The appeals arose from the order of assessment passed under sections 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the validity of the search assessment framed under section 153A, challenged on the grounds that the approval under section 153D was obtained in a mechanical manner, using a single approval for multiple assessment years. The Tribunal referenced a coordinate bench decision in Keher Singh vs DCIT, which addressed similar procedural inadequacies in granting approvals under Section 153D.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775872 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Keher Singh vs DCIT, PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, ACIT, Circle-1 (2) Vs. Serajuddin and Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: V. K. SABHARWAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Assessment record; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) Atul Kumar Bansal, 911, Gali Inderwali, Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKBPB8917C ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14) ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi Vs. Atul Kumar Bansal, 911, Gali Inderwali, Sita Ram Bazar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AKBPB8917C Assessee by : Shri V. K. Sabharwal, Adv Shri Aditya Rai, Adv Shri Rajiv Kapoor, Adv Revenue by: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/09/2025 O R D E R Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 Atul Kumar Bansal Page | 2 PER BENCH: 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 20.02.2017 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A/ 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.03.2015 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The Assessee has raised a preliminary ground challenging the validity of the search assessment framed in his hands under section 153A of the Act in view of the fact that approval under section 153D of the Act has been obtained from the competent authority in a mechanical manner and a single approval has been obtained for various assessment years including the years under consideration. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld DR before us placed on record the email received from the ld AO dated 05.06.2025 containing the approval granted by the ld Addl CIT u/s 153D of the Act dated 31.03.2015. For the sake of convenience the said approval is granted u/s 153D of the Act is reproduced herein:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 Atul Kumar Bansal Page | 3 4. We find that approval granted by the Learned Additional CIT in the above fashion was subject matter of adjudication by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Keher Singh vs DCIT in ITA Nos. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 Atul Kumar Bansal Page | 4 2835 to 2841/Del/2024 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21 dated 19-3-25 wherein it was held as under:- “7. After going through this set of evidences available at pages 2-15, we are of the considered view that only one approval u/s 153D was granted by letter F.No.Addl.CIT/CR-7/2021-22/634 and by marking check mark (\"√\") for each year the approvals are shown to have been issued for each year, but, as a matter of fact, there is no change in the No. of letter being F.No.Addl.CIT/CR-7/2021- 22/634 under which the approval u/s 153D of the Act was issued by the competent authority. Thus, there is no dispute that a composite approval was sought and granted in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21. 8. Then we find that although at the time of granting approval the ld. competent authority has mentioned that: “Approval is hereby accorded u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the draft assessment order as amended in the following case, on the basis of the detailed discussion with you time to time, information available on record, facts mentioned in the Appraisal Report and relevant seized documents perused by you & brought to the notice of undersigned. ” 7. However, the aforesaid seems to be some sort of mechanical exercise only because in the corresponding letter from the ld. AO dated 27.09.2021 (supra) only draft orders were submitted for examination. There is no reference that appraisal report or seized documents were also forwarded. In fact, it is pertinent to observe that vide letter dated 27.09.2021 (supra), the AO had made a request that “online approval u/s 153D may kindly be accorded.” This shows that certainly, the assessment records were not forwarded, what to talk of appraisal report and relevant seized documents. 8. Furthermore, as we examine the approval dated 27.09.2021, we find that in para 3, the ld. competent authority has mentioned as follows:- “3. Copies of the final assessment orders should be forwarded to this office immediately after passing the orders. Proposal for retention of seized material should also be forwarded to this office within time as per IT Act, 1961. Before passing the final order, in case, there is Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 Atul Kumar Bansal Page | 5 requirement of protecting the interest of revenue, permission u/s 281B from Pr. CIT(C)-3, New Delhi should be taken. Office note, indicating additions in relevant assessment years should be indicated in all Assessment Years, You have certified about perusal and verification of data seized in electronic format through working copies having certified hash values as that of original hard drives/CDs/pen drives/mobile data & any other electronic date. You have also certified to the undersigned that all information available in AIR/CIB/from other Law Enforcement Agencies have been properly scrutinized by you before finalizing the draft assessment order. Please ensure that penalty is levied under proper section of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\" 9. The aforesaid observations of the ld. competent authority, as emphasized above in bold italics by us, when considered in the light of the alleged incriminating evidences used in assessments, we find that in fact, no data was seized in electronic format from hard drive/CDs/pen drives/mobile data so as to necessitate making these observations by the ld. competent authority. The aforesaid observations and directions only indicate that in a perfunctory manner without application of mind post completion of assessment, on the draft orders the approval has been granted. 10. It is now settled proposition of law that the approval so granted without taking into consideration the assessment record, incriminating evidences and the approval not exhibiting the reasons for granting the approval independently on the draft assessment order cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal, 466 ITR 254 (Del). Further we find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024 (Del), dated 15.05.2024, has decided the similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under :- \"15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. \" 11. In the case of ACIT, Circle-1 (2) Vs. Serajuddin and Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No. 44989/2023 vide order dated 28/11/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Department of Revenue against the order dated 15/03/2023 in ITA No. 43/2022 passed by Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 Atul Kumar Bansal Page | 6 the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had quashed the Assessment Order on the ground of inadequacy in procedure adopted for issuing approval u/s 153D of the Act by expressing discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to allow the ground No.5 and, consequently the appeals of the assessee for relevant years before us stand allowed and the impugned assessments for the relevant years involved are quashed.” 5. It could be seen that the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range -4, New Delhi had accorded approval under Section 153D of the Act for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14, which constitute a consolidated approval for all the assessment years, which in our considered opinion, is not in consonance with the requirement of provisions of Section 153D of the Act. The plain reading of provisions of Section 153D of the Act makes it very clear and the section mandates approval under Section 153D of the Act to be given for each assessment year for each assessee. Here the consolidated approval has been given for various assessment years for one assessee, which is not in accordance with provisions of Section 153D of the Act. Hence, the search assessments framed based on this invalid approval under Section 153D of the Act deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the assessments for assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 are quashed on this limited count itself. 6. Since, the entire search assessments are quashed, the various additional grounds and original grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the revenue both on law as well as on merits need not be gone into Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1691 to 1696/Del/2017 ITA Nos. 2599 to 2604/Del/2017 Atul Kumar Bansal Page | 7 as adjudication of the same would only be academic in nature and hence they are left open. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/09/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (C. N. PRASAD) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10/09/2025 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 "