Virender Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT Quashes 21 Search Assessments for Invalid Common Approval Under Section 153D
The Delhi ITAT allowed 21 miscellaneous applications and recalled its earlier common order after finding that it had failed to adjudicate the assessees’ additional legal ground challenging the validity of the section 153D approval. The Tribunal accepted that the legal ground had been duly raised but remained undecided, warranting recall of the earlier order under section 254(2).
On merits, the Tribunal held that the common approval granted under section 153D by the Additional CIT for multiple assessees and multiple assessment years did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in PCIT v. Anuj Bansal and the Delhi and Allahabad High Court rulings in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, MDLR Hotels (P.) Ltd., Subodh Agrawal, Sapna Gupta, and Siddarth Gupta, it held that approval under section 153D must be granted separately for each assessee and for each assessment year after due application of mind.
Since the impugned assessments had been framed on the basis of an invalid common approval, the Tribunal held them to be in violation of section 153D and quashed all 21 assessments. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications as well as the main appeals were allowed, and all other issues on merits were rendered academic.
Cases Discussed
- PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC), (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327
- PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (SC), (2024) 165 com 2
- PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (SC), (2024) 466 ITR 254
- PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (Delhi HC), (2024) 467 ITR 186
- PCIT Vs. Subodh Agrawal (Allahabad HC), (2023) 149 taxmann.com 373
- PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta (Allahabad HC), (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288
- PCIT Vs. Siddarth Gupta (Allahabad HC), (2023) 147 taxmann.com 305
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. These three assessees, namely, S/Shri Virender Gupta, Praveen Kumar Gupta and Munni Lal have filed their instant seven misc. applications each, totaling to twenty one cases i.e. Misc. Applications No.225 to 245 231/De1/2026, under section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to recall the Tribunal’s impugned common order dated 17.11.2025 allowing their corresponding main Appeals i.e. ITA Nos.4224 to 4244/DEL/2026 respectively, for statistical purposes.
2. Heard the assessees as well as the department. Case files perused.
3. It transpires during the course of hearing that all these three assessees/ applicants raise their identical sole substantive grievance that our impugned common order dated 17.11.2025 has restored the matter(s) back to the learned CIT (A) for his fresh appropriate adjudication without dealing with the additional ground(s) raised therein challenging validity of all these sections 153A/153C assessments; as the case may be, for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the Act. This clinching factual position of the assessees having raised the aforesaid legal ground has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Faced with this situation, we recall our impugned order dated 17.11.2025 and now proceed to decide the assessees’ identical legal ground hereunder in very terms.
4. Next comes is assessee’s additional ground raised in the application(s) dated 12.11.2025 field before the Tribunal. Learned counsel invites our attention to Annexure-D with the instant misc. application(s) containing the ld. Addl. CIT, Central Circle 16, New Delhi, common section 153D approval dated 29.12.2019 finally culminating in framing of the corresponding assessments herein. We notice from the perusal thereof that the aforesaid learned prescribed authority had not approved the Assessing Officer’s proposed section 153D appeal separately; for each assessment year as well as assessee-wise, as the case may be. Various recent precedents i.e. PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, (2024) 165 com 2 (SC), PCIT Vs. Subodh Agrawal (2023) 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad), PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad), PCIT Vs. Siddarth Gupta (2023) 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad),PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 467 ITR 186 (Del.), PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 466 ITR 254 (SC) and PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.) have already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such an approval under section 153D has to be accorded separately for each and every assessment years even if it involves a single assessee. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s vehemently stand opposing technical admission of the assessees’ aforesaid legal ground as well as supporting impugned assessments framed by the learned Assessing Officer in very terms. All these twenty one assessments are hereby quashed since framed in violation of section 153D appeal therefor. The assessee’s instant twenty seven appeals i.e. ITA Nos.4224 to 4244/DEL/2026 shall now be treated as allowed heneforth.
5. All other remaining pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.
6. These three assessees’ instant seven misc. applications each i.e. Misc. Applications No.225 to 245 231/Del/2026 as well as main appeals i.e. ITA Nos.4224 to 4244/DEL/2026; are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of July, 2026 after the conclusion of the hearing.
