MUKESH KUMAR GIRI,MEERUT V. ACIT, ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 6724/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Kumar Giri, the appellant, contesting the validity of assessments made by the ACIT Central Circle, Meerut, for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The primary legal contention was the lack of valid approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, which is required for passing orders under sections 143(3) and 153A. The appellant argued that the approval was granted in a mechanical manner and was common across multiple years, which is not permissible under the law. The respondent defended the validity of the approval process. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, concluded that the common approval was indeed invalid, leading to the quashing of the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848965 (ITAT-NEW DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, PCIT Vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT Vs. Subodh Aggarwal, PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta, Tish Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Hitesh Golcha vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Search and seizure
• Section: 144; 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCONTANT MEMBER ITA No.6723 to 6729/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2018-19 Mukesh Kumar Giri D-7, Balwant Enclave, Roorkee Road, Meerut PAN No.AHLPG3332P ACIT Central Circle Meerut Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocate Sh. Kartika Sikka, Advocate Respondent Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-3, Noida dated 12.08.2025 for the A.Y.2012-13 to 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that referring to ground No.14 of grounds of appeal in these appeals raised by the assessee, submitted that the assessee is challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the impugned order u/s.143(3) /153A of the Act as bad in law, illegal and nullity in the eyes of law. As the same was passed without obtaining valid approval u/s.153D in accordance with law. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished a copy of approval granted by the Additional CIT dated 30.12.2019 u/s.153D for the A.Y’s 2012-13 to 2018-19 and submitted that the mandatory approval given u/s.153D of the Act is a mechanical manner, without application of mind and it is a common approval given for various assessment years i.e. from 2012-13 to 2018-19. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that since the Addl. CIT passed common approval u/s.153D for various assessment years the same is illegal, bad in law and consequently the assessments framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A pursuant to such illegal approval u/s.153D are also bad in law and void ab initio. 4. On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that in the case of M/s. Asian Fab Tech Ltd. (ITA Nos.373- 375/Bang/2025) and L.K Trust (ITA Nos. 1375 & 1147/Bang/2025) a reference was made to the Hon’ble President of ITAT u/s.255(4) of the IT Act on the difference of opinion in the matters relating to sanction/ approval Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 u/s.153D. Therefore, since the referral to Special Bench is pending the present matters be adjourned for some time. 5. Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We observe that the issue of whether passing a common approval for several assessment years u/s.153D whether such approval is valid or not has been decided by the jurisdictional High Courts in the case of DCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal reported in 65 taxmann.com 2. We also observed that in several decisions the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had considered the issue of whether common approval is a valid approval or not and therefore, in our opinion the request for reference to Special Bench has no relevance for the reason that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has already decided the issue and the Benches of the IAT Delhi are bound by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, since the issue has already decided by the Hon’ble High Court we proceed to decide these appeals. 6. In these cases the Addl. CIT granted the following common approval u/s.153D dated 30.12.2019 as under :- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 7. As could we observe from the above approval granted u/s.153D of the Act the Addl. CIT had granted a common approval for passing assessment order for various assessment years starting from A.Y.2012-13 to 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 8. We observe that the issue as to whether the common approval granted u/s. 153D for various assessment years is a valid approval and is in accordance with the provisions of u/s. 153D or not, came up before various High Courts including the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (65 taxmann.com 2) and the Hon’ble Allahabad High court in the cases of PCIT Vs. Siddharth Gupta (450 ITR 534), PCIT Vs. Subodh Aggarwal (149 taxmann.com 373), PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta (147 taxmann.com 288). Following the said decision the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tish Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 2310 and 2311/Del/2025 dated 16.06.2025 held such a common approval granted u/s.153D is in violation of provisions of section 153D of the Act and is granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, observing as under:- 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. A search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the case of Samtel Group on 18-01- 2018. Various residential and business premises of the directors and group companies were covered under the search and survey operations. Warrant was issued in the name of M/s Tish Consultants Pvt. Ltd i.e assessee herein. In view of the search operation, the group case was centralized to Central Circle II, Noida. vide order passed by the Learned PCIT under section 127 of the Act on 15-04-2019. Pursuant to the search, notice under section 153A of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 23-04-2019. In response to the notice, the assessee electronically filed its return of income on Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 08-12-2019 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. It is pertinent to note that assessee had also filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 28-09-2016 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The search assessment was completed under section 153A read with section 144 of the Act on 29-12-2019 for Assessment Year 2016-17 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 51,54,04,230/-. This assessment order was framed by the Learned AO after getting approval under section 153D of the Act from the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range, Meerut vide proceedings dated 28-12- 2019. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A), wherein the fact of approval under section 153D of the Act being granted in a mechanical manner by the Learned Additional CIT thereby making the entire assessment proceedings void ab initio, was indeed raised, vide Ground No. 1.1. The case of the assessee falls under the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. Hence, the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court would become Jurisdictional High Court decision for the assessee and would be binding on all the subordinate authorities. Accordingly, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs Siddharth Gupta reported in 450 ITR 534 (All) in support of its contentions. The assessee also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the revenue against this decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 43280/2023 dated 9.8.2024. However, the Learned CITA chose to rely on the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Hitesh Golcha vs ACIT reported in TAXC No. 76 of 2024 dated 10.4.2024, wherein it was held that there cannot be any presumption as to non-application of mind by the Learned Addl CIT while granting approval under section 153D of the Act. No comments were made by the Learned CITA regarding the non- applicability of decision of Jurisdictional High Court decision of Allahabad. 4. The Learned DR before us filed detailed written submissions supporting the approval granted by the Learned Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Act to be a valid approval and accordingly all the decisions Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 relied upon by the Learned AR cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. But on perusal of the entire written submissions of the Learned DR, we find that what has been sought to be addressed by the Learned DR is only to drive home the point that the approval proceedings of Learned Additional CIT is merely an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act and hence such administrative approvals cannot be subjected to challenge. But the moot point to be noted in the instant case is the Learned Additional CIT has given consolidated approval for 11 assessees’ for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19 on a single day which is in violation of provisions of Section 153D of the Act itself as the said section mandates approval to be given for each assessee for each assessment year separately. Hence the entire written submissions of the Learned DR would not advance the case of the revenue in any manner. 5.The Learned DR vehemently argued that very existence of high presumption of law which is also codified u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that all official acts are regularly performed and therefore, the Tribunal had to accept that the presumption of approval are validly granted. The Learned DR further stated that merely because the approvals were granted by one letter does not mean that it was not granted for each assessment year. 6. For the sake of convenience, the approval granted under section 153D of the Act by the Learned Additional CIT, Meerut is reproduced below:- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 7. On perusal of the above, we find that the Learned Additional CIT, Central Range, Meerut had granted approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act for all the cases for all assessment years vide consolidated approval in F.No.Addl CIT/CR/MRT/Approval/153D/2019-20/1516 dated 28.12.2019. Hence, it is very clear that a common approval was given by the Learned Additional CIT under section 153D of the Act vide Approval No. 1516 dated 28.12.2019 for various assessees’ for various assessment years. This goes to prove that the approval under section 153D of the Act has not been given by the Learned Addl. CIT for ‘each assessment year’ and for ‘each assessee’ separately which is mandate of the provisions of Section 153D of the Act. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sidharth Gupta reported in 450 ITR 534 (All) wherein it was held as under:- “16. The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical exercise, without application of independent mind by the Approving Authority on the material placed before it and the reasoning given in the assessment order. It is admitted by Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant- revenue that the approval order is an administrative exercise of power on the part of the Approving Authority but it is sought to be submitted that mere fact that the approval was in existence on the date of the passing of the assessment order, it could not have been vitiated. This submission is found to be a fallacy, in as much as, the prior approval of superior authority means that it should appraise the material before it so as to appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the Assessing Authority before preparing the draft assessment order. It is trite in law that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. The requirement of approval under section 153D is pre-requisite to pass an order of assessment or re-assessment. 17. Section 153D requires that the Assessing Officer shall obtain prior approval of the Joint Commissioner in respect of \"each assessment year\" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A which provides for assessment in case of search under section 132. Section 153A(1)(a) requires that the assessee on a notice issued to him by the Assessing Officer would be required to furnish the return of income in respect of \"each assessment year\" falling within six assessment years (and for the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 relevant assessment year or years), referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A. The proviso to section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). 18. The careful and conjoint reading of section 153A(1) and section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to \"each assessment year\" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment years placed before the Approving Authority on 30-12-2017 and 31-12-2017 were approved on 31-12-2017, which not only included the cases of respondent-assessee but the cases of other groups as well. It is humanly impossible to go through the records of 123 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the material before the Approving Authority. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it was a mechanical exercise of power, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.” (emphasis supplied by us) 8. Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Subodh Agarwal reported in 149 taxmann.com 373 (All. HC); PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta reported in 147 taxmann.com 288 (All. HC) and by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Anuj Bansal reported in 165 taxmann.com 2 (Del. HC), among others. 9. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the Learned Addl. CIT for various assessees’ for various assessment years is to be considered as an approval given for “each assessment year”, then it would render the requirement of passing an order for “each Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 assessment year” with prior approval under section 153D of the Act, nugatory. Therefore, the obligation on the approving authority is to verify the draft assessment order of each assessment year together with the related seized document to ascertain whether it complies with law as well as the procedure laid down. Hence it is established that the action of the Learned Additional CIT in granting common approval for all the assessment years for various assessees’ in a mechanical manner without application of mind is writ large. 10. Since the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court, the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court relied upon by the Learned DR need not be gone into in view of the principles of binding precedents. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval under section 153D of the Act has not been granted for each of the assessment year which is in violation of provisions of Section 153D of the Act itself thereby making the approval being granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Hence, the Ground No. B raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. Consequentially the assessment framed for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19 are hereby quashed. Since, the assessments are quashed based on Ground No. B, the other grounds raised by the assessee need not be gone into and they are left open. 26. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (supra) and various High Courts and the coordinate Bench of Tribunal referred to above, we hold that the common approval granted u/s.153D of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in Assessee’s case is not in accordance with provisions of section 153D of the Act as it is granted in a mechanical manner and without Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 due application of mind and therefore, the same is bad in law and consequently the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A for the A.Ys. 2012 to 13 to 2018-19 pursuant to such invalid approval are also bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, we hereby quash the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19. Ground No.14 of grounds of appeal is allowed. 27. Since the assessments for the A.Y. 2012-13 to 2018-19 are quashed on legal issue, all other legal grounds and the grounds on merits need not be adjudicated at this stage since they become only academic in nature and hence they are left open. 28. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y.2018-19 are partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25.03.2026 *Neha, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "