Reema Sharda Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Combined Approval u/s 148B for Multiple Assessees is Mechanical—Following Earlier Sharda-Family Ruling, Assessments Quashed
Both appeals were filed by Mrs. Reema Sharda (AY 2022-23) and Mrs. Mamta Sharda (AY 2021-22) challenging reassessment orders passed under the amended 148A/148B regime. The central legal issue raised was that the approval u/s 148B dated 23.05.2023—a single, common sanction issued for six different assessees—was mechanical, lacked application of mind, and therefore vitiated the entire reassessment process.
The assessees pointed out that a coordinate Delhi Bench, in a batch of eight appeals of the same Sharda family group (Manish Sharda, Mamta Sharda & Rakhi Sharda), had already quashed the assessments on this very issue vide order dated 30.04.2025, after examining the same combined approval. The Bench had relied on binding precedents:
- PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del.)
- PCIT v. MDLF Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.)
- ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC)
—all holding that a composite approval for multiple assessees violates Section 148B since satisfaction must be individual, case-specific.
The Revenue could not controvert the earlier ruling or justify the combined approval.
The Tribunal noted that the exact same approval dated 23.05.2023 was relied upon in the present two assessments as well. Since the approval was identical, and the issue was already adjudicated in favour of assessees in the earlier batch, the principle of judicial consistency applied.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the 148B approval was invalid, the consequent 148A(d) orders and reassessments were void, and therefore:
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
