VIKRAM KUMAR BAJAJ,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI

ITA 1263/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Vikram Kumar Bajaj, the appellant, contesting the validity of an assessment order for the assessment year 2016-17, which was passed following a search and seizure operation at the premises of Bajaj Group. The primary contention was the lack of proper approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the approval was granted in a consolidated manner for multiple assessment years on the same day the request was made, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. The Tribunal, referencing several judicial precedents, held that such mechanical approvals are invalid and quashed the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781518 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR, DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi Versus Shiv Vani Buildwell Private Ltd., TARAN PAL WADHWAN, D-1/24, VASANT VIHAR, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, DELHI, MELODY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, SATISH CHAND TYAGI VS. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT (UTTAR PRADESH), RISHI RAJ JAIN VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Question of law; Search and seizure; Assessment record; Competent authority; Validity of assessment
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 234B

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1263/DEL/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vikram Kumar Bajaj, RNB House, 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. PAN: ACXPB 6203 D Vs DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ved Jain, Adv.; Shri Pawan Garg, CA; &Ms. Ishika Dua, CA Department represented by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R PER KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 30, New Delhi against the order of assessment for A.Y. 2016-17. Grounds of appeal raised are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the learned AO under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is illegal and bad in law as the same has been passed without having valid jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the AO under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to the search which was initiated under the wrong pretext. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the learned AQ under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eyes of law. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred, in reissuing the notice under section 153A dated 05.09.2019 despite the fact that reassessment proceedings initiated by initial notice issued under section 153A dated. 03.07.2018 was already pending and not concluded by the AO. (ii) That the learned AO has erred in ignoring the settled position of law that the AO cannot issue the fresh notice unless and until the assessment proceedings earlier initiated by the AO was completed. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO is illegal and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed violating the provisions of section 124 of the Income Tax Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the appellant and the assessment framed under section 153A r. w.s 143(3) are in violation of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred, in passing the order despite the fact that the notice issued under section 143(2) is barred by limitation as the same has been issued beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act 9. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that notice issued 142(1) of the Act is bad in law as the same was issued prior to the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the learned AO in drawing adverse inference against the appellant on the basis of above notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act which itself is invalid. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the learned AO has erred in making the addition in order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. 11. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153A against the appellant and the consequent reassessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) are in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Act and as such the same is bad in eyes of law. (ii) That the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without any application of mind. 12 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid and bad in law as the same was passed in violation of the circular No. 19/2019 issued by CBDT which Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj mandates that no order shall be passed without there being valid Document Identification Number (DIN) 13. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made by the AO as undisclosed income on the basis of documents found during the course of search (ii) That the addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submission and explanation brought on records by the assessee. 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid additions despite the fact that same has been made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee without giving assessee an opportunity to rebut the same in violation of provisions of section 142(3) of the Act. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite that same has been made without conducting any independent enquiry by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made by misinterpreting the statements recorded on oath during the course of search. 17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO by indulging in conjecture and surmises only on the basis of presumption and assumption. 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the AO has erred in charging the tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 20. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj 2. During the proceedings before us the learned counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of assessment order passed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act), on the ground of lack of proper approval u/s 153D. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel has filed synopsis which is reproduced below. “Synopsis 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the CIT(A) order dated 23.03.2023 arising from the reassessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 2. CIT(A) in its order has confirmed the addition made in the reassessment order and therefore the assessee is in appeal before Your Honours. Brief facts of the case 3. The assessee is a resident individual and filed his return of income on 27.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 7,62,220/-. 4. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the various premises of Bajaj Group on 20.04.2017. 5. Accordingly, Ld. AO initiated proceedings u/s 153A of the Act against the assessee and issued notice u/s 153A of the Act dated 03.07.2018. 6. The reassessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 20.12.2019 by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 7. Thereafter, aggrieved by the reassessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore the assessee is in appeal before your Honours. Approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act is bad in law as the same is consolidated and without any application of mind 9. The approving authority has given the approval u/s 153D of the Act on 20.12.2019 in a single letter for 5 assessment years which are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj a. AY 2012-13 b. AY 2013-14 c. AY 2014-15 d. AY 2016-17 e. AY 2018-19 10. Further, it is relevant to mention that Section 153D of the Income-tax Act casts a statutory obligation on the competent authority to grant valid statutory prior approval in respect of each assessment year before an assessment order is passed under section 153A of the Act. The legislative intent is that such approval must be preceded by application of mind by due consideration of the materials on record before the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act is passed. 11. In the present case, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax granted a single consolidated approval covering multiple assessment years of the assessee. Such omnibus approval is contrary to the express mandate of section 1530 which contemplates approval for each assessment year separately. The requirement of law is not satisfied if one composite approval is granted for a block of years 12. In the instant case, approval has been obtained u/s 153D as follows- Sr. no. Name of the Assessee A.Y. Approval Date Approval Letter No. Assessment order date 1. Sh. Vikram Kumar Bajaj 2012-13 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/73 20.12.2019 2 2013-14 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/73 20.12.2019 3. 2014-15 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/73 20.12.2019 4. 2016-17 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/73 20.12.2019 5. 2018-19 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/73 20.12.2019 6. M/s RNB International Pvt. Ltd. 2013-14 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/75 20.12.2019 7. 2014-15 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/75 20.12.2019 8. M/s RNB International Pvt. Ltd. 2012-13 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/75 20.12.2019 9. M/s RNB International Pvt. Ltd. 2013-14 20.12.2019 Addl. CIT/CR-8/153D/2019-20/75 20.12.2019 13. Judicial precedents have consistently held that such mechanical or consolidated approvals are invalid. Courts have emphasized that approval under section 153D cannot be a rubber stamp exercise; it must reflect an Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj independent and year-wise application of mind by the competent authority. Failure to adhere to this requirement vitiates the assessment proceedings themselves. 14. Accordingly, where a consolidated approval has been granted for several years together, the consequent assessments are unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed on this ground alone, without the necessity to enter into merits of the additions. 15. The aforesaid ratio has been laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR, 2024 (6) TMI 29-DELHI HIGH COURT, Dated:- May 15, 2024, wherein it was held that- \"17. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the leamed 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 judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration. 19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.\" 16. Reliance is also placed on the judgement by ITAT DELHI - DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi Versus Shiv Vani Buildwell Private Ltd. No. ITA No. 5040/Del/2024, CO No. 44/Del/2025 (ITA No. 5040/Del/2024) (or)- 2025 (7) TMI 114-Dated:- June 6, 2025, wherein it is held as under: \"6. It can be observed that in Prateek Nagpal vs. ACIT decided vide ITA No. 466/Del/2022 (AY 2012-13), ITA No. 521/Del/2022 (AY 2013-14) & ITA no. 522/Del/2022 (AY 2014-15) and Anu Nagpal V. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj ACIT ITA No. 3843/DEL/2024 order dated 16.04.2025 on similar facts and circumstances of the case as well common approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act dated 30.12.2019, the coordinate bench has quashed the entire proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the ACIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi. 7. The copy of approval u/s. 153D of the Act dated 30.12.2019 granted in total 28 assessees cases wherein, the present assessee's name is mentioned at serial no. 10 and also perused the Tribunal's order dated 10.1.2025 passed in the case of Prateek Nagpal's case whose name also stands mentioned at serial no. 3 and of Anu Nagpal whose name is mentioned at Sr. 182 of the said approval u/s. 153D of the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that exactly on similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Coordinate Bench vide its common order dated 10.01.2025 passed in another case viz. Prateek Nagpal (supra) similar legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee by quashing the entire proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the ACIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi. 8. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 reproduced establishes that a single approval has been granted for various assessment years and various 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. 9. We accordingly sustain the additional ground raised in the CO and allow the same. The impugned assessment is quashed. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.\" 17. Further the reliance is also placed on the judgement by Hon'ble ITAT DELHI BENCH in the case TARAN PAL WADHWAN, D-1/24, VASANT VIHAR, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, DELHI, ITA NO. 2687 & 2688/DEL/2025, Dated-29.08.2025. Relevant para is held as under- 7. It could be seen that the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range -2, New Delhi had accorded approval under Section 153D of the Act for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019- Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj 20, which constitute a consolidated approval for all the assessment years, which (0:48) 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 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 153C of the Act deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the assessments for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019- 20 are quashed on this limited count itself. 8. Since the entire search assessments are quashed, the various grounds raised by the assessee both on law as well as on merits need not be gone into as adjudication of the same would only be academic in nature and hence they are left open. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.\" 18. Since the approval u/s 153D was granted in a consolidated and mechanical manner, without independent application of mind for each assessment year, the very foundation of the impugned assessments stands vitiated. 19. Further, reliance may be placed upon following judicial precedents- ➤ MELODY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI - 2025 (9) TMI 1052 Dated-Sept. 12, 2025- ITAT DELHI ➤ SATISH CHAND TYAGI VS. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT (UTTAR PRADESH), ITΑ ΝΟ. 5200 ΤΟ 5203/DEL/2024, DATED-28.05.2024-ITAT DELHI \"12. As noted above, in the instant case, a single approval u/s 153D has been accorded in respect of seven Assessment Years pertaining to the Assessee along with other two Assessees for seven Assessment Years each. There is no mentioning of seized material in the other material to show involvement of the superior authority in the approval granted by the ACIT. Applying the ratio of judgments delivered as Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj noted above, the assessment order based on ritualistic approval stands vitiated and thus quashed by allowing the Ground No. 3 and sub Ground in ITA No. 5203/Del/2024, Ground No. 4 and sub Grounds in ITA No. 5200/Del/2024, 5201/Del/2024 and 5204/Del/2024. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA Nos. 5200/Del/2024, 5201/Del/2024, 5202/Del/2024 and 5203/Del/2024 are allowed. 14. Since, we have quashed the Assessment Order on the ground of erroneous approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act, we do not consider it necessary to address on other legal and factual contentions raised in the other grounds of Appeals of the Assessee.\" ➤ SARITA TYAGI VS. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT, U.P., ITA NO. 5076 & 5077/DEL/2024, DATED 07.07.2025.-ITAT DELHI ➤ RISHI RAJ JAIN VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI, ITA NO. 937/DEL/2024, DATED-16.07.2025-ITAT DELHI 20. In view of what has been stated above and the reliance on the judgments, the assessment order is invalid and liable to be quashed as the approval u/s 153D of the Act is itself invalid and illegal.” 2.1 Ld. counsel submitted that in the instant case the Assessing Officer had sent a letter to the Additional CIT, Central Range-8, New Delhi for granting approval u/s 153D and the same was returned on the same day i.e. 20.12.2019 to the assessing officer, according approval for passing the assessment order and the assessment order was also passed on the very same day i.e. 20.12.2019. The learned counsel argued that by doing so it is clear that the learned Additional CIT, Central Range-2, New Delhi had accorded approval u/s 153D in haste without Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj making due application of mind. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for quashing the assessment order for want of valid approval u/s 153D. 3. Per contra, Ld. CIT(DR) relied on the assessment order. 4. We have heard rival submissions. In the instant case the fact that the learned Additional CIT, Central Range-2, New Delhi had accorded his approval u/s 153D in nine cases including assessee’s five assessment years on 20.12.2019 i.e. the same day on which the request for approval was received. The aforesaid fact clearly reveals that the Approving Authority, while granting approval u/s 153D of the Act has acted in haste, without examining the assessment record and as a mere rubber stamp. The approval granted is, thus, completely mechanical without application of mind. Thus, in our view, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act is invalid being not in accordance with the provisions contained u/s 153D of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed in pursuance to such approval is also invalid, hence, deserves to be quashed. We order accordingly. In coming to our conclusion we draw support from catena of judgments in PCIT v. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.); ACIT vs. Serajuddin & co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar 2024 (6) TMI 29 (Delhi); DCIT v. Vani Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 5040.Del/2024, CO No. 44/Del/2025 – 2025(7) TMI 114 dt. 6.6.2025]; Taran Pal Wadhwan v. ACIT [ITA Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 1263/Del/2023 Vikram Kumar Bajaj No. 2687 & 2688/Del/2025 dt. 29.08.2025]; Melody Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025(9) TMI 1052 dt. 12.09.2025]; Satish Chand Tyagi v. DCIT [ITA No. 5200 to 5203/Del/2024 dt. 28.05.024] etc. etc. 5. Resultantly, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in open court on 29.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.09.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "