SANJAY GUPTA,FARIDABAD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

ITA 4467/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Sanjay Gupta against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which were based on the assessments made by the Assessing Officer under sections 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was regarding the approval process under section 153D, which Sanjay Gupta argued was a mechanical and non-judicious approval. The tribunal examined the approval letters and found that they were consolidated for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of individual cases, leading to a lack of independent application of mind. This finding was supported by a precedent from a similar case, Vinod Jindal Versus Dy. CIT Faridabad, which influenced the tribunal's decision to quash the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838187 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vinod Jindal Versus Dy. CIT Faridabad ITA 1979 to 1985/Del/2025, Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMIL AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4465 to 4468/Del/2025 ITA No.4554 & 4555/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2019-20) Sanjay Gupta 642, Sector 21, Faridabad Haryana – 121001 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Faridabad Haryana - 121001 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAZPG2141D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the Assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:- ITA No. & AY Ld. FAA who passed the appellate order Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order 4465/D/25 2014-15 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No.CIT(A)/GGN- 3/10639/2013-14, 11068/2014- 15, 11249/2015-16, 11619/2016-17 dated 27.06.2025 ACIT, CC-1 Dated 18.09.2021 4466/D/25 2015-16 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No.CIT(A)/GGN- 3/10639/2013-14, 11068/2014- 15, 11249/2015-16, 11619/2016-17 dated 27.06.2025 ACIT, CC-1 Dated 18.09.2021 4467/D/25 2016-17 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No.CIT(A)/GGN- 3/10639/2013-14, 11068/2014- 15, 11249/2015-16, 11619/2016-17 dated 27.06.2025 ACIT, CC-1 Dated 18.09.2021 4468/D/25 2017-18 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No.CIT(A)/GGN- 3/10639/2013-14, 11068/2014- 15, 11249/2015-16, 11619/2016-17 dated 27.06.2025 ACIT, CC-1 Dated 21.09.2021 4554/D/25 2018-19 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. CIT (A), Gurgaon- 3/10525/2017-18 dated 30.06.2025 ACIT, CC-1 Dated 18.09.2021 4554/D/25 2018-19 CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon Appeal No. CIT (A), Gurgaon- 3/10858/2018-19 dated 30.06.2025 ACIT, CC-1 Dated 18.09.2021 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel has pointed out that the only issue being contended at this stage is arising out of ground No. 7 in AY: 2014-15 which is common to other years also that the approval granted in terms of 153D of the Act is an outcome of non application of mind and is a mechanical approval. In this context, the ld. Counsel has placed before us the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) copy of approvals for AY: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18 granted by a consolidate letter dated 02.07.2021 and for AY: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 given by letter dated 01.09.2021. As for convenience we reproduced both the approval letters as follows: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) 3. Ld. DR has submitted that this approval is an administrative function and otherwise the senior authorities are constantly providing guidance to AO and are well aware of notices issues, incriminating material relied and issues so grant of common approval is not illegality and approval cannot be called mechanical approval as there was sufficient time between the request made for granting approval and the approval actually granted for which ld. DR has relied the copies of the letters written and it was submitted that while in regard to AY: 2014-15 letter dated 23.08.2021 was written in fact AY: 2015- 16 and 2017-18 letter dated 29.06.2021 was written and in regard to AY: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 letter dated 31.08.2021 was written. 4. However, we go through this letters relied by ld. DR we find that these are not letters written seeking approval in regard to assessee alone but in assessee being part of M/s Piyush Group search assessments and case of assesse was also sent along. 5. Then, further we consider it appropriate to reproduce one of the letters dated 31.08.2021 as follows: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 7 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) 6. Now, this letter dated 31.08.2021 is considered and we find that draft assessment orders have been forwarded along with relevant assessment records but what ld. Approving authority records is that the approval is being granted subject to fact ‘as submitted’but are the facts which were submitted remains ambiguous as the same do not form part of the letter dated 31.08.2021. 7. At the same time, we are of the considered view that the content of approval granted indicates that consolidated approval for multiple years was granted and there was no independent application of mind to the material or seized document relied by the Assessing Officer while ld. AR has demonstrated that there were different issues forming different grounds for additions. Thus, the consolidated order merely accepting the fact that issues have been examined by the Assessing Officer did not serve the purpose. 8. The ld. counsel has relied a decision of a Coordinate Bench in Vinod Jindal Versus Dy. CIT Faridabad ITA 1979 to 1985/Del/2025 order dated 12.09.2025, wherein after relying decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024, a similarly structured approval letter has been held to be not in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 8 6 Appeals Sanjay Gupta (AY: 2014-15 to 2019-20) 9. In light of aforesaid peculiar facts as discussed, we find that the approval granted is not in accordance with law. The corresponding ground in all the appeals deserves to be sustained. The appeals are allowed and the impugned assessment are quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2026 Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 20.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "