M/S DRISHTI BUILDERS & PROMOTERS,DEHRADUN V. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 5499/DEL/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Drishti Builders & Promoters appealing against the assessment orders passed under sections 153A(1)(b) and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The primary contention was the validity of the approval under section 153D, which was claimed to be mechanical and without proper application of mind. The Tribunal, referencing several precedents, concluded that the combined approval for both assessment years was improper, leading to the quashing of the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38343 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• 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: S.K. CHATERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL KAPOOR; S. LALCHANDANI
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 5498/Del./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 5499/Del./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/s Drishti Builders & Promoters, 32/4, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun, Uttrakhand (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAIFA4643E Assessee by: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. Lalchandani, Sh. T. Chanana, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. Revenue by: Sh. S. K. Chaterjee, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These twin assessee’s as many appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 5498 & 5499/Del/2016, for A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 arise against the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur’s case Nos. CIT(A)-IV/75/DCIT-CC- DDN/14015/105 & 106 dated 14.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 153A(1)(b)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. This assessee raises a common additional ground in these twin appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 5498 & 5499/Del./2016 which are as under: ITA Nos. 5498 & 5499/Del./2016 Drishti Builders & Promoters 2 “7. That the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed u/s 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Assessing Officer (“AO) and the additions made therein are illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be deleted. 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mechanical and without any application of mind and is not a valid approval. Thus, the impugned assessment order is illegal, bad in law, and liable to be quashed.” 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 30.03.2015, in consequence to the search action herein dated 26.04.2012, 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. 5498 & 5499/Del./2016 Drishti Builders & Promoters 3 sought the prescribed authority’s approval dated 30.03.2015. The clinching fact emanating from the learned Assessing Officer’s order herein had infact sought a common approval for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 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 all the impugned assessments framed herein in assessee’s case in assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in very terms. 6. All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic. 7. To sum up, these assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 5498 & 5499/Del/2016 are allowed. 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/- (M. Balaganesh) (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 "