VIBHOR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD V. DCIT, CC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 1001/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Vibhor Tyagi, the appellant, contesting the additions made to his income by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, which were upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur. The additions pertained to alleged unaccounted income and 'ON MONEY' for property purchases. The appellant argued that the additions were unjustified and based on unsubstantiated documents. Additionally, the appellant challenged the procedural validity of the assessment orders under section 153A/143(3) without proper approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal regarding the lack of proper approval and found the assessments to be void ab initio, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840132 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2021
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Varas International, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, DHL Operators, PCIT vs. Subodh Agarwal, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, PCIT vs. Siddarth Gupta, ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., Millenium Vinimay (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT, Anuj Bansal vs. CIT, Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ESS Advertising (Mauritius) SNC Et Compagnie vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVAM GARG
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Assessment record; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 69C; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘F’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1001/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) VIBHOR TYAGI vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax R9/ 242, Rajnagar, Central Circle-Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad -201002 Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh (PAN : AFWPT4235R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate Shri Harsh Raghav, Adv. REVENUE BY: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date of Order : 27.02.2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 14.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (\"Ld. AO\") and Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and bad in law. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making the addition of Rs. 4.74.455/- to the income of the appellant in respect of alleged interest earned on the interest bearing amount stated to have been deposited by the appellant. The addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO erred in making addition of income of the appellant based on the typed out loose sheet found from the premise of one. Sh. Deepak Kumar which was never confronted to the appellant. The addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO erred in assuming and consequently making addition of alleged amount of Rs. 4.74.455/-to the income of the appellant. No such corresponding documents was found during search from the possession of the appellant so as to co-relate the alleged investment with the appellant. The typed statement used by the assessing officer does not inspire confidence and addition made is thus illegal and bad in law. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO erred and went wrong to make an addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to the income of the appellant under section 69C of the act in respect of ON MONEY alleged to be paid to the company for the purchase to the flat. The flat stated in the name of appellant was never purchased and thus the addition made is illegal, unjustified and bad in eyes of law. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the loose sheets containing the details of the collection of ON MONEY against flat booked and contents thereof were never confronted to the appellant and no specific notice was issued. The addition made is thus unjustified and illegal. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the flats under question as stated in the loose sheets was cancelled by the company for nonpayment of dues and as such the addition made in respect of on money alleged to be paid is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. the statement does not reflect with Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 certainty the year in which the ON MONEY is alleged have been paid if any, by the appellant. 8. That the Ld. AO/Ld. CTT(A) has erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and234C of the Act. 9. That the Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in initiating the penalty proceedings under section271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. That above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify any of the ground ground(s) during or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The Ld. AR filed additional grounds of appeal with the application for admission of additional grounds of appeal which is as under: “i. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment orders were passed under section 153A/143(3) without seeking mandatory approval under section 153D of the Act. ii. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the approval under section 153D of the Act is mechanical, without any application of mind, without perusing the records of the case and has been passed in a haste therefore the assessment orders passed by the Ld. AO under section 153A are void-ab- initio, jurisdictionally flawed, and deserve to be quashed. iii. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the approval under section 153D of the Act is a consolidated approval, which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 153D and in violation of mandatory procedure laid down by CBDT in Circular No. 03 of 2008 dated 12.03.2018.” 4. And he has also submitted para 5 & 6 of the above application, which read as under: “5. It is well established that an assessee can raise an additional legal ground or even a new legal plea at any stage of the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 proceedings. In support of this, the appellant/assessee seeks to rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Varas International, reported in 284 ITR 80 (SC), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC), and the Special Bench decision in DHL Operators, reported in 108 TTJ 152 (SB). 6. Furthermore, these grounds raise jurisdictional issues that are purely legal and go to the root of the matter. Equity and justice also demand that these grounds be admitted for the reasons stated above.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to the additional grounds of appeal on the issue of approval u/s 153D of the Act and submitted that these grounds were never raised before lower authorities. 6. Considered the submissions of both parties and found that the additional ground raised by the assessee are legal grounds and proceeded to admit the same for adjudication by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited (supra). 7. With regard to additional grounds of Appeal, Ld. AR submitted as under: “1. It is submitted that though it is alleged by Ld. AO that the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 & AY 2017-18 were passed after obtaining approval from the Addl. CIT under section 153D vide F.No. Addl. CIT /CR/ MRT/ Approval/153D/2018-19/2004 dated 28.12.2018, but no such approval was provided to the assessee, which makes it doubtful whether the approval was in fact obtained as alleged. 2. The Assessee places reliance on the judgment of coordinate bench in the case of Emaar MGF Land Limited vs. ACIT, ITA No. 825/DEL/2018 wherein it was held that if the department fails to provide the copy of approval under section 153D to the Assessee, then it has to be assumed Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 that no such approval exists. Relevant paras of the decision are reproduced hereunder for reference: \"7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and are of the considered view that it is now settled proposition of law that prior approval of competent authority under section 153D of the Act is mandatory and same is required to pass rigor of the law, to show that the approval was granted after due consideration of the assessment records and it was not a mechanical approval. Inspite of giving reasonable and sufficient opportunities to the department AO has failed to produce any copy or other evidence of existence of the approval. That only gives rise to a presumption that there was no approval at all. In the absence of same no conclusion can be drawn as to if the approval was in accordance with law or not but to hold that the assessments in hand were concluded without the requisite approval u/s 153D of the Act. In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.\" A. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the approval under section 153D is a mechanical approval which was accorded, without reviewing the draft assessment orders and relevant assessment records and was given in consolidated manner 1. The assessment orders were passed after obtaining purported approval granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D in a perfunctory manner, without applying his mind, reviewing the relevant records and without issuing separate approvals in case of \"each assessee\" for \"each assessment year\". 2. On perusal of order, the following facts emerge which establish that the approval was granted mechanically, without reviewing the draft assessment orders or the relevant assessment records: a) That vide letter F.No. AddI.CTT/CR/MRT/Approval/153D/2018- 19/2004 dated 28.12.2018, the Addl. CIT approved all orders of the assessee pertaining to 7 AYs in a consolidate manner; b) That vide letter F.No. Addl.CIT/CR/MRT/Approval/153D/2018- 19/2004 dated 28.12.2018, the Addl. CIT not only approved the assessment orders of 7 AYs of assessee only, but also approved 14 orders of two different assessees Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 c) That on 28.12.2018, the Addl. CIT not only approved the 7 orders of the assessee, but also approved 63 other orders of the assessee group pertaining to different assessees; 3. Moreover, in all the assessment orders, it is stated on the last page that present order has been passed with the prior approval of Addl. CIT, and common approval number is mentioned i.e. F.No. Addl.CIT/ CR/MRT/Approval/153D/2018-19/2004 dated 28.12.2018. This facts clearly demonstrate that consolidated approval was granted for the impugned AYs. (Copy of first and last page of the assessment orders of all AY's are annexed at P. No. 1-14 of PB). 4. Similarly, the 14 orders approved by the Addl. CIT on 28.12.2018 vide same letter i.e. F.No. Addl. CIT/CR/MRT/Approval/153D/2018-19/2004 in case of two different assesses are enclosed at P. No. 15-42 of Paper- book. 5. Furthermore, the 49 assessment orders approved by the Addl. CIT of the different assesses of assessee group vide other letters on the very same day i.e. 28.12.2018 are enclosed P. No. 43-140 of Paper-book. 6. The perusal of the facts and evidence on record with respect to the approval of Addl. CIT reveals the following facts: a) A common approval was sought by the Ld. AO for the impugned AYs and same was granted by the Addl. CIT, rather than obtaining individual approvals for each assessment year. b) A common approval for 21 assessment orders of 3 different assesses was sought by the Ld. AO and same was granted by the Addl. CIT, rather than obtaining individual approvals in case of \"each assessee\" c) On 28.12.2018, Addl. CIT accorded approval to atleast 70 orders of the assessee group pertaining to different assessee; d) The Addl. CIT granted approval mechanically, without any application of mind, without perusing the draft assessment orders, not to speak of assessment records. e) That since approval for multiple AYs in case of different assessees was given on the same day as per the common letter, it must not have been possible for the Addl. CIT to apply his mind as to whether the orders were factually and legally correct. As per the mandate of the provisions of section 153D as interpreted by courts, for approving orders under Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 Section 153D of the Act, the Authority shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record for \"each assessment year\" separately. The words \"each assessment year\" used in Section 153D and 153A have been considered to hold that adequate and proper meaning has to be given so that underlying legislative intent as per the scheme of assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. Reliance is placed on PCIT V. Subodh Agarwal [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad), Pr. CIT v. Sapna Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288 and PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, [2024] 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi), and PCIT v. Siddarth Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad) (SLP dismissed by SC on 09.8.2024) amongst other case law. f) The Assessee also draws support from the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008, which explains the section 153D of the Act and states that approval under section 153D has to be granted for the each assessment year falling within block under section 153A of the Act. Relevant portion of the circular is reproduced hereunder for reference: \"50.2 A new section 153D has been inserted to provide that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner except with the previous approval of the Joint Commissioner. Such provision has been made applicable to orders of assessment or reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 1324. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause (b) of section 153B in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisitioned is made under section 132A.\" g) Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT. Serajuddin & co. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) [SLP dismissed in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under. \"22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional CIT. The letter simply grants an Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 approval. in other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement the law. As explained in the above cases, the mere repeating of the words of the statute, or mere \"rubber stamping\" of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like 'see' or 'approved' will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in the context of section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply to section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AO should submit the draft assessment order \"well in time\". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in writing: (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order.\" h) Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v. ΙΤΟ (2021) 435 ITR 642 (Del) and ESS Advertising (Mauritius) SNC Et Compagnie v. ACIT, (2021) 437 ITR I(Del.), which relate to the validity of approval under section 151 of the Act, which is pari-materia with the provisions of section 153D of the Act and fully cover the issue of validity of impugned approval u/s 153D of the Act. i) It is, therefore, submitted that since the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D dated 28.12.2018 in the instant case is not in accordance with the law, the assessment orders of all AY's passed under section 153A of the Act in consequent to such approval stand vitiated and accordingly, the same deserve to be quashed.” Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the decision of lower authorities and submitted that procedures of obtaining permissions which are administrative in nature and the procedure was rightly followed. 9. In the rejoinder, Ld. AR brought to our notice the assessment order passed for seven assessment years, which are kept in the paper book, as per the approval reference which are available at pages no. 1 & 2 of the assessment order and submitted that the same approval was granted for all the assessment years, it clearly shows that single common approval was granted u/s 153D of the Act. Further, he brought to our notice that in the connected cases also, a common approval was granted in the cases of Smt. Deepa Tyagi, Shri Praveen Tyagi, Smt. Priyanka Chaudhary, Smt. Suman Tyagi, M/s. Vibhor Vaibhav Infrahome Pvt. Ltd. , Shri. Dinesh Chand and Shri.Yogender Singh with the same common approval. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have especially perused the approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act and the case laws cited by the ld. AR in the paper book at the time of hearing. We noticed that the common approval was granted in the case of the assessee for 7 assessment years and same approval containing the file number on which all the approvals granted in the case of the assessee and the connected cases are granted at the same time. 11. We find that Hon’ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Central vs. Siddharth Gupta (supra) has decided the similar legal issue in Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (supra) and Hon’ble High Court held as under :- “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. 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 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). 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. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 12. We further, find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) 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. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- \"10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for seven assessment years in the case of the assessee and for seven assessment years in the case of Smt. NeetuNayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. NeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact is not in dispute before us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the approval u/s Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. NeetuNayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessees, which information is not available before us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together.\" 17. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above. 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration.” 13. We also find that ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s MilleniumVinimay (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (supra) has dealt with the similar legal issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced as under:- “15. There are several decisions, which supports the view that approval granted by the superior authority in mechanical manner defeats the very purpose of obtaining approval u/s 153D of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- \"1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (\"the Tribunal\" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no 'application of mind' on the part of the Authority granting approval? 3. Brief facts are that the Tribunal by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\" for short) for Assessment Year 2007- 08. This was on the ground that the mandatory statutory requirement of obtaining an approval of the concerned authority as flowing from Section 153D of the Act, before passing the order of assessment, was not complied with. 4. This was not a case where no approval was granted at all. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was without application of mind and, therefore, not a valid approval in the eye of law. Tribunal reproduced the observations made by the Additional CIT while granting approval and came to the conclusion that the same suffered from lack of application of mind. The Tribunal referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in support of its conclusion that the approval whenever required under the law, must be preceded by application of mind and consideration of relevant factors before the same can be granted. The approval should not be an empty ritual and must be based on consideration of relevant material on record. 5. The learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the question of legality of the approval was raised by the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Additional CIT had granted the approval. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the same is invalid. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the both sides and having perused the documents on record, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The Additional CIT while granting an approval for passing the order of assessment, had made following remarks : \"To, The DCIT(OSD)1, Mumbai Subject: Approval u/s 153D of draft order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Nandan Damani for A.Y. 2007-08 reg. Ref: No. DCIT (OSD)1/ CR7/Appr/2010-11 dt. 31.12.2010 As per this office letter dated 20.12.2010, the Assessing Officers were asked to submit the draft orders for approval u/s 153D on or before 24.12.2010. However, this draft order has been submitted on 31.12.2010. Hence there is no much time left to analyze the issue of draft order on merit. Therefore, the draft order is being approved as it is submitted. Approval to the above said draft order is granted u/s 153D of the I. T. Act, 1961.\" 7. In plain terms, the Additional CIT recorded that the draft order for approval under Section 153D of the Act was submitted only on 31st December, 2010. Hence, there was not enough time left to analyze the issues of draft order on merit. Therefore, the order was approved as it was submitted. Clearly, therefore, the Additional CIT for want of time could not examine the issues arising out of the draft order. His action of granting the approval was thus, a mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft order as it is without any independent application of mind on his part. The Tribunal is, therefore, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the approval was invalid in eye of law. We are conscious that the statute does not provide for any format in which the approval must be granted or the approval granted must be recorded. Nevertheless, when the Additional CIT while granting the approval recorded that he did not have enough time to analyze the issues arising out of the draft order, clearly this was a case in which the higher Authority had granted the approval without consideration of Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 relevant issues. Question of validity of the approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In the result, no question of law arises. 8. Accordingly, the Tax Appeal is dismissed.\" 16. 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 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. 17. Hence, vindicated by the factual position as noted in preceding paras, we find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. the Assessee's Representative on the Additional Ground of Appeal. In our considered opinion the approvals so granted under the shelter of section 153D of the Act does not pass the test of legitimacy. The Assessment orders of various assessment years as a consequence of such inexplicable approval lacks legitimacy. Consequently, the impugned assessments orders in the captioned appeals are non-est and a nullity and hence the same are quashed. 18. In view of prima facie merits found in the legal objections raised in the Addl. Grounds of the Assessees, we do not consider it expedient to look into the aspects on merits of additions/disallowance as the legal objections on sanction granted under Section 153D of the Act has been answered in favour of the Assessee. Thus the other Grounds raised in the Appeals of the Assessee in both the Appeals have rendered in- fructuous, which do not need any separate adjudication. 19. In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos. 294/Del/2022 and ITA No. 295/Del/2022 are allowed. 11. Upon considering the entire aspect of the matter, we find that the approval has been granted not separately for each Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 assessment year for the assessee whereas the provision of Section 153D of the Act stipulates conditions that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. It further appears from the approval dated 08.06.2018 that the same was a common and composite order whereas the Addl. Commissioner is required to verify and approve that each of assessment year is complied with as well as procedural laid down under the Act. Such fact clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. Thus granting approval for all the common years instead of approval under Section 153B for each assessment year separately de horse the rules. The said approval is found to have been given in a mechanical and routine manner. We find that the order issuing authority has not discharged its statutory duties cast upon him even by assigning cogent reasons in respect of the issues involved in the matter. Thus granting approval in the absence of due application of independent mind to the material on record for each assessment year in respect of the assessee's case separately vitiates the entire proceedings; the same is found to be arbitrary and erroneous and therefore, liable to be quashed. We are also inspired by the ratio laid down in the Judgment narrated hereinabove passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and respectfully relying upon the same with the above observation, we quash the entire proceeding initiated under Section 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 14. Respectfully following the above precedents, we quash the entire proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 Meerut vide F.No. Addl. CIT/CR/MRT/Apprival/153D/2018-19/2004 dated 28.12.2018. 15. We are refrained from adjudicating the other grounds of appeal at this stage, we kept the other grounds of appeal open. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:27.02.2026 Binita, 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 18 ITA No.1001 /Del/2021 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal order 23.02.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member 24.02.2026 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal order is placed before the other Member (in the case of DB) 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal order comes to the Sr. PS/PS 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign (in the case of DB) 7. Date on which the order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which order goes for Xerox 11. Date on which order goes for endorsement 12. Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent /O.S. for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. 14. Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15. Date of dispatch of the order 16. Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "