AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER BENCH :
The captioned seven appeals are filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), all dated 26.11.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) arising out of separate assessment orders, passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2010-11.
The issues involved in all captioned appeals are interlinked, therefore, they have been heard together and accordingly, adjudicated by this common order.
First, we take assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 687/Del/2026 for AY 2004-05 wherein, the assessee has raised as many as 16 grounds of appeal, but however, he argued the legal ground no. 14 which reads as under:
“14.That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in passing the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2011 without there being requisite approval in terms of section 153D and in any case approval if any is mechanical without application of mind and is no approval in the eyes of law.”
The learned AR of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the impugned assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act when the AO has sought common approval vide letter dated 30.12.2011 u/s. 153D for the AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11 and which also was granted by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi by a common letter dt. 30.12.2011 for all the assessment years from 2004-05 to 2010-11 in respect of assessee alongwith other different six assessees purely in mechanical manner, without application of mind and when such approval is a non-est in the eyes of law and vitiates the entire assessment itself.
The Ld. CIT DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and objected to the submissions of the ld. AR. He submitted that 153D approval is not applicable as per the amendment effective from 01.04.2021.
Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessment framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, on the ground that the learned prescribed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act. We may reproduce the approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, which read as under:
Office of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, 3rd Floor A.R.A. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-110055 F.No./Addl.CIT/C.R-4/Approval u/s 153D/91/2011-12/556 Dated 30-12-2011 To, The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-9, New Delhi.
Sub:- Approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for framing assessments u/s 153A/153C -regarding.
Please refer to your letter No. F.No. ACIT/CC-9/2011-12/395 dated 30.12.2011 forwarding draft orders U/s 153A/153C in the following cases.
S.No Name of the Assessee Address Assessment Year 1. M/s Aseem Kumar Gupta 2D, MIG DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh , Delhi-07 2004-05 to 2010-11 2. M/s ACME Auto Pvt. Ltd. 305, Aggarwal Arcade, Plot No. 6, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi 2004-05 to 2010-11 3. Shri. Rajeev Chawla B-5, Madhuban Near Preet Vihar Delhi-92 2004-05 to 2010-11 4. Smt. Anupama Chawla 200, Patparganj Indl. Area, New Delhi-92 2004-05 to 2010-11 5. Shri. Baldeva Raj Chawla B-5, Madhuban Near Preet Vihar Delhi-92 2004-05 to 2010-11 6. Smt. Ranjana B-5, Madhuban Near Preet Vihar Delhi-92 2004-05 to 2010-11 7. Smt. Bimla Dhin 734 Sector-15, Faridabad 2004-05 to 2010-11 Considering facts mentioned in the draft order and office note approval is granted u/s 153D of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in the above mentioned cases. Statutory approval by the undersigned may be mentioned in the main body of the order.
(S.K. Jain) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi.
We find that in the case of ACIT, Circle1(2) vs. M/s Serajudeen and Co., the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue against the order dated 15-03-2023 in ITA No. 43/2022 wherein the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in ITA No. 39 to 45/2022 held that:
“22.As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee there is not even a token mention of the draf t orders having been perused by the Additional CIT. The letter simply grants an 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 draf t orders and finds that it meets the requirement of 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 satisfied the requirement of law.”
We further find that in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -15 v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that : “17. Notable, 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 fail 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.
We observe that learned Assessing Officer had sought the prescribed authority’s approval on 30.12.2011 in respect of assessee for the various assessment years viz. 2004-05 to 2010-11 alongwith the other 6 different assesses which stood granted on the same day i.e. 30.12.2011. The sole issue is that the learned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for the assessment years from 2004-05 to 2010-11 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 support therefrom, to quash the impugned assessments framed herein in assessee’s case for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2010-11 in very terms. Regarding the recent amendment introducing new section 292BC of the Act, wherein it is provided that no order should be held as invalid for any defective approval. However, such amendment is applicable for the approval granted on or after 01.04.2021 however, in the instant case as observed above, the ld. Adl. CIT has granted the approval u/s 153D of the Act on 30.12.2011 which incidentally be prior to 01.04.2021 thus the aforesaid amendment is not applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.
Since we have already quashed the assessments on the issue of invalid approval u/s 153D of the Act, the other grounds of appeal taken on the merits of the additions become academic.
In the result, appeal of the assessee being ITA No. 687/Del/2026 (AY 2004-05) is allowed.
Our aforesaid decision taken in assessment year 2004-05 will apply mutatis mutandis in other six remaining appeals of the assessee being ITA Nos. 688 to 693/Del/2026 relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 as well. Accordingly, on similar lines as aforesaid, these remaining six appeals are also allowed.
In the final result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed.