Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 10 ITAT CK 2361

Parveen Tayal vs DCIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 15 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 1924/Del/2025; ITA No. 1925/Del/2025; ITA No. 1926/Del/2025; ITA No. 1927/Del/2025; ITA No. 1928/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 341 words

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

These assessee’ s five appeals in ITA Nos. 1924 to 1928/Del/2025 for Asse ssment Years 2013-14, 2016-17 to 2019-20 arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073198902(1), 1073199328(1), 1073200361(1) & 1073847481(1) dated 30.01.2025 & 19.02.2025 in proceedings u/s 153A r.w .s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2.

Heard both the p arties at length. Case files peruse d.

3.

We next note that there arises the fir st and foremost issue o f validity of the impugned assessments framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act; dated 24 .04.2021 and 17.05.2021 in consequence to the search action herein dated 06.06.2018 on the ground that the learned prescr ibed authority had not accorded a valid approval thereto u/s 153D of the Act.

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that we admit the assessee’s instant legal ground and note with the able assistance co ming from both the parties that the learned Assessing Officer had sought the prescribed authority’s approval dated 15.04.2021. The clinching fact emanating from the approval letter is that the lear ned Assessing Officer herein had infact sought a common approval for all seven assessment years from 2013-14 to 2019-20 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.co m 327 (Del.) and ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC), to conclude that such a co mbined section 1 53D approval indeed vitiates the entire assessment itself. We draw strong support there fro m to quash the impugned assessments framed herein in assessee’s case in asse ssment years 2013-14, 2016-17 to 2019-20 in very terms.

5.

All other pleadings o n merits here in stand rendered academic.

6.

These assessee’s five appeals ITA Nos. 1924 to 1928Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court o n 15/10/2025.