Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 vs Atul Kumar Bansal
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~36 to 40 & 43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010490192026
(36)+ ITA 806/2026 & CM APPL. 70510/2026, CM APPL.
70511/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey, Adv.
versus
ATUL KUMAR BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
# CNR No. DLHC010490212026
(37)+ ITA 807/2026 & CM APPL. 70518/2026, CM APPL.
70519/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey, Adv.
versus
ATUL KUMAR BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
# CNR No. DLHC010490232026
(38)+ ITA 808/2026 & CM APPL. 70523/2026, CM APPL.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 1 of 21
70524/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10, DELHI
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey, Adv.
versus
ATUL KUMAR BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
# CNR No. DLHC010490272026
(39)+ ITA 809/2026 & CM APPL. 70537/2026, CM APPL.
70538/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey, Adv.
versus
ATUL KUMAR BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
# CNR No. DLHC010490312026
(40)+ ITA 810/2026 & CM APPL. 70544/2026, CM APPL.
70545/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey, Adv.
versus
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 2 of 21
ATUL KUMAR BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
# CNR No. DLHC010491272026
(43)+ ITA 813/2026 & CM APPL. 70741/2026, CM APPL.
70742/2026
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr.
Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr.
Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr.
Shamindra Kumar Dey, Adv.
versus
ATUL KUMAR BANSAL .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under
Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), assailing the
common order dated 10.09.2025 (“the impugned order”) passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench „A‟, New Delhi (“the
ITAT”), in the appeals pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09
to 2013-14.
2. By the impugned order, the learned ITAT has dismissed the
appeal filed by the revenue and quashed the assessments framed under
Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act, holding that the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 3 of 21
learned Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Range-4,
New Delhi had accorded approval under Section 153D of the Income
Tax Act for AY 2007-08 to AY 2013-14 which constitutes a
consolidated approval for all the assessment years, which is not in
consonance with the provisions of Section 153D of the Act. The
learned ITAT held that the plain reading of the provisions of the
Section 153D of the Act makes it clear that the Section mandates
approval under Section 153D of the Act to be given for each
assessment year for each assessee.
3. The facts of the case as stated by the appellant-revenue are as
under :
a) It is a case of the appellant that during the course of search
conducted at the business premises of the assessee, various
bill books were found and seized. During the course of post-
search and assessment proceedings, the seized documents
were examined, and it was found that several bills had been
issued to BSBK Group, whose premises had also been
covered during the search operation.
b) Thereafter, the statement of the assessee, Shri Atul Kumar
Bansal was recorded on oath According to the Revenue, the
assessee admitted to issuing bogus transportation bills to
entities belonging to the BSBK Group. It is also stated that
in the further enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing
allegedly indicated that the assessee was engaged in
providing accommodation entries. The assessment
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 4 of 21
proccedigns were finalized by making additions on account
of credit entries in bank accounts belonging to Shri Atul
Kumar Bansal and commission earned by him on such bogus
accommodation entries.
c) The assessment under Section 153A read with Section
143(3) framed by the Assessing Officer determining the total
income at Rs. 1,27,91,68,77.00/-. The Assessing Officer
made an addition of Rs. 1,24,75,97,552/- on account of
unexplained credits in bank accounts belonging to the
entities controlled by the assessee.
d) Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment
orders before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
[“CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals, taking
into consideration, inter alia, the assessee's alleged
admission regarding the activity of providing
accommodation entries through the purchase and sale bills
issued to the needy parties by routing the entries through
bank accounts of various concern controlled by him and the
Assessee was using all these firms for the purpose of
providing sale bills for which he was earning commission.
e) With respect to the commission income, the CIT(A)
observed that the assessee had not furnished documentary
evidence to substantiate the commission rate claimed by him
at 0.15%. Taking into account the prevailing rates stated to
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 5 of 21
be charged in the market for providing accommodation
entries are normally range between 0.5 to 1% as
commission. Therefore, the CIT(A) considered the rate of
commission at 2.5% assessed by the Assessing Officer to be
excessive and consequently, modified the order holding that
net commission rate of 0.75% would be reasonable.
f) Aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), both the
assessee and the Revenue preferred cross appeals before the
ITAT.
g) The ITAT disposed of the matter stating approval sought
under Section 153B which is consolidated approval for the
all the assessment years was not in a consonance with the
requirement of the provisions of the Section 153D of the
Act, and therefore, the ITAT quashed the entire assessments
framed for the relevant assessment years, which according to
the learned ITAT was invalid approval under 153D of the
Act.
h) The appeals of the assessee therefore automatically allowed
in view of the above.
4. It is this common order dated 10.09.2025 that has been assailed
by the Revenue in the present appeals.
QUESTION OF LAW
5. The principal question arising for consideration is:
Whether the ITAT was correct in quashing the assessments
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 6 of 21
framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the
Act on the ground that the consolidated approval was not in
accordance with the provision of Section 153D of the Act?
6. Section 153A of the Act, as applicable to the relevant
assessment years, provides for the assessment of a person in whose
case a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account or
other documents or assets are requisitioned under Section 132A. The
relevant portion of Section 153A (1), in sofar as material to the present
controversy, is read as under:
“153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139,
section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and
section 153, in the case of a person where a search is
initiated under section 132 or books of account, other
documents or any assets are requisitioned under section
132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer
shall—
(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish
within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the
return of income in respect of each assessment year falling
within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment
year or years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed
form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth
such other particulars as may be prescribed and the
provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply
accordingly as if such return were a return required to be
furnished under section 139;
(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment
years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to
the previous year in which such search is conducted or
requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or
years.”
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 7 of 21
7. Section 153B of the Act prescribes the time limit for completion
of assessments under Section 153A. The provision, insofar as relevant,
reads as follows:
“153B. Time limit for completion of assessment under
section 153A.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, the
Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or
reassessment—
(a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six
assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or
years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section
153A, within the period prescribed under this section;
(b) in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous
year in which search is conducted under section 132 or
requisition is made under section 132A, within the period
prescribed under this section.”
8. Section 153D of the Act, which is central to the controversy,
reads as follows:
“153D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of
search or requisition.—
No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by
an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner
in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B,
except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner :
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply
where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case
may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer
with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or
Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.”
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 8 of 21
9. The ITAT examined the approval granted by the learned
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-4, New
Delhi, for the assessments pertaining to AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14.
It held that the approval constituted a consolidated approval for the
assessment years covered by it and was not in conformity with the
requirement of Section 153D of the Act.
10. In reaching this conclusion, the ITAT relied upon the decision of a
coordinate Bench in Keher Singh v. DCIT , ITA Nos. 2835 to
2841/Del/2024, for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21, decided on
19.03.2025. The relevant observations of the ITAT are reproduced
hereinbelow:”
“4.We find that approval granted by the Learned
Additional CIT in the above fashion was subject matter of
adjudication by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in
the case of Keher Singh vs DCIT in ITA Nos. 2835 to
2841/Del/2024 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21
dated 19-3-25 wherein it was held as under-
“7. After going through this set of evidences
available at pages 2-15, we are of the
considered view that only one approval u/s
153D was granted by letter F.No.Addl.CIT/CR-
7/2021-22/634 and by marking check mark
("√") for each year the approvals are shown to
have been issued for each year, but, as a matter
of fact, there is no change in the No. of letter
being F.No.Addl.CIT/CR-7/2021- 22/634 under
which the approval u/s 153D of the Act was
issued by the competent authority. Thus, there
is no dispute that a composite approval was
sought and granted in the case of the assessee
for assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 9 of 21
8. Then we find that although at the time of
granting approval the ld. competent authority
has mentioned that:
“Approval is hereby accorded u/s 153D of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the draft
assessment order as amended in the
following case, on the basis of the detailed
discussion with you time to time,
information available on record, facts
mentioned in the Appraisal Report and
relevant seized documents perused by you
& brought to the notice of undersigned. ”
7. However, the aforesaid seems to be some
sort of mechanical exercise only because in the
corresponding letter from the ld. AO dated
27.09.2021 (supra) only draft orders were
submitted for examination. There is no
reference that appraisal report or seized
documents were also forwarded. In fact, it is
pertinent to observe that vide letter dated
27.09.2021 (supra), the AO had made a request
that “online approval u/s 153D may kindly be
accorded.” This shows that certainly, the
assessment records were not forwarded, what
to talk of appraisal report and relevant seized
documents.
8. Furthermore, as we examine the approval
dated 27.09.2021, we find that in para 3, the ld.
competent authority has mentioned as follows-
“3. Copies of the final assessment orders
should be forwarded to this office
immediately after passing the orders.
Proposal for retention of seized material
should also be forwarded to this office
within time as per IT Act, 1961. Before
passing the final order, in case, there is
requirement of protecting the interest of
revenue, permission u/s 281B from Pr.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 10 of 21
CIT(C)-3, New Delhi should be taken.
Office note, indicating additions in
relevant assessment years should be
indicated in all Assessment Years, You
have certified about perusal and
verification of data seized in electronic
format through working copies having
certified hash values as that of original
hard drives/CDs/pen drives/mobile data
& any other electronic date. You have
also certified to the undersigned that all
information available in AIR/CIB/from
other Law Enforcement Agencies have
been properly scrutinized by you before
finalizing the draft assessment order.
Please ensure that penalty is levied under
proper section of the Income Tax Act,
1961."
9. The aforesaid observations of the ld.
competent authority, as emphasized above in
bold italics by us, when considered in the light
of the alleged incriminating evidences used in
assessments, we find that in fact, no data was
seized in electronic format from hard
drive/CDs/pen drives/mobile data so as to
necessitate making these observations by the ld.
Competent authority. The aforesaid
observations and directions only indicate that
in a perfunctory manner without application of
mind post completion of assessment, on the
draft orders the approval has been granted.
10. It is now settled proposition of law that the
approval so granted without taking into
consideration the assessment record,
incriminating evidences and the approval not
exhibiting the reasons for granting the
approval independently on the draft assessment
order cannot be sustained.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 11 of 21
Reliance in this regard is placed on the
decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in
the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal , 466 ITR
254 (Del). Further we find that Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT
vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024
(Del), dated 15.05.2024 , has decided the
similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and
against the Revenue. The relevant findings of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced
as under :-
"15. A similar view was taken by this
Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra),
whereby, it was reiterated that the
exercise of powers under Section 153D
cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the
salient aspect which emerges from the
abovementioned decisions is that grant of
approval under Section 153D of the Act
cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or
rubber stamping by the authority, rather it
must reflect an appropriate application of
mind. "
11. In the case of ACIT, Circle-1 (2) Vs.
Serajuddin and Co. the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No. 44989/2023
vide order dated 28/11/2023, dismissed the
Appeal filed by the Department of Revenue
against the order dated 15/03/2023 in ITA No.
43/2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the Hon'ble High
Court had quashed the Assessment Order on
the ground of inadequacy in procedure adopted
for issuing approval u/s 153D of the Act by
expressing discordant note on such mechanical
exercise of responsibility placed on designated
authority under section 153D of the Act.
12. In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 12 of 21
to allow the ground No.5 and, consequently the
appeals of the assessee for relevant years
before us stand allowed and the impugned
assessments for the relevant years involved are
quashed.”
5. It could be seen that the Learned Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range -4, New
Delhi had accorded approval under Section 153D of the
Act for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14, which
constitute a consolidated approval for all the assessment
years, which 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 consolidated 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 153D of the Act deserves
to be quashed. Accordingly, the assessments for
assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 are quashed on this
limited count itself.
6. Since, the entire search assessments are quashed, the
various additional grounds and original grounds raised
by the assessee as well as by the revenue 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.
7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are
allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are
dismissed.”
(underlined emphasis supplied)
11. A perusal of the approval in the instant case indicates that the
learned Additional Commissioner has accorded approval under
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 13 of 21
Section 153D For AY 207-08 to 2013-14 which constitutes a
consolidated approval for all the assessment years.
12. The issue is to whether such approval is permitted or not, has
been held by a coordinate bench of this Court in Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax-15 versus Shiv Kumar Nayyar.
13. The coordinate bench of this Court after quoting 153D of the
Act has observed as under:
“11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an
uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section
153D of the Act has to be granted for “each assessment
year” referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT
v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which
captures with precision the scope of the concerned
provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase-
“each assessment year” used in the language of Section
153D of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said
decision are reproduced as under:-
“13. It was held therein that if an approval has
been granted by the Approving Authority in a
mechanical manner without application of mind
then the very purpose of obtaining approval under
Section 153D of the Act and mandate of the
enactment by the legislature will be defeated. For
granting approval under Section 153D of the
Act, the Approving Authority shall have to apply
independent mind to the material on record for
"each assessment year" in respect of "each
assessee" separately. The words 'each
assessment year' used in Section 153D and 153A
have been considered to hold that effective and
proper meaning has to be given so that
underlying legislative intent as per scheme of
assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 14 of 21
It was held that the "approval" as contemplated
under 153D of the Act, requires the approving
authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the
issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft
assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain
as to whether the required procedure has been
followed by the Assessing Officer or not in
framing the assessment. The approval, thus,
cannot be a mere formality and, in any case,
cannot be a mechanical exercise of power.
*
19. The careful and conjoint reading of Section
153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for
doubt that approval with respect to "each
assessment year" is to be obtained by the
Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order
before passing the assessment order under
Section 153A.”
[Emphasis supplied]
12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta
(supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had
held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein
was granted without any independent application of mind.
The Court took a view that the approving authority had
wielded the power to accord approval mechanically,
inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible for the said
authority to have perused and appraised the records of 85
cases in a single day. It was explicitly held that the authority
granting approval has to apply its mind for “each
assessment year” for “each assessee” separately.
13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the
Orissa High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin
and Co. [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 992] to understand the
exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of
the said decision reads as under:-
“22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel
for the assessee there is not even a token
mention of the draft orders having been perused
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 15 of 21
by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.
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 draft 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
"seen" or "approved" will not satisfy the
requirement of the law. This is where the
Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes
important. Although, it was in the context of
section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply
to section 153D of the Act. There are three or four
requirements that are mandated therein, (i) the
Assessing Officer should submit the draft
assessment order "well in time". Here it was
submitted just two days prior to the deadline
thereby putting the approving authority under
great pressure and not giving him sufficient time
to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be
in writing; (iii) the fact that approval has been
obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the
assessment order.”
[Emphasis supplied]
14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition
preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case of
Serajuddin (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme
Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no.
44989/2023.
15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of
Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 16 of 21
exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done
mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from
the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval
under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic
formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must
reflect an appropriate application of mind.
16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting
that the approval was granted on the same day when the
draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:-
“10. We have gone through the approval granted
by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of
the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper
book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states
that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld.
AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of
draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The
ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said
draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e.,
on 30.12.2018 for seven assessment years in the
case of the assessee and for seven assessment
years in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyar. It is also
pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and
69 of the paper book which contains information
obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central
Public Information Officer who is none other
than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to
Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld.
Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on
30.12.2018 itself. This fact is not in dispute
before us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from
page 36 of the paper book which contains the
approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the
assessee herein and Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The
remaining cases may belong to some other
assessees, which information is not available
before us. In any event, whether it is humanly
possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 17 of 21
CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the
Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject
matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D
provides that approval has to be granted for each
of the assessment year whereas, in the instant
case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single
approval for all assessment years put together.”
17. Notably, 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 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.”
14. This Court has concurred with the views taken by the Orissa
high court and the Allahabad high court.
15. Further, the Legislative intent can be gathered from the CBDT
Circular No.3 of 2008 dated 12.3.2008 which reads as under:
“50. Assessment of search cases Orders of assessment and
reassessment to be approved by the Joint Commissioner.
50.1 The existing provisions of making assessment and
reassessment in cases where search has been conducted
under 6 ITA. No 4061/ Mum/2012 section 132 or requisition
is made under section 132 A does not provide for any
approval for such assessment.
50.2 A new section 153D has been inserted to provide that
no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by
an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner
except with the previous approval of the Joint
Commissioner. Such provision has been made applicable to
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 18 of 21
orders of assessment or reassessment passed under clause
(b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year
falling within six assessment years immediately preceding
the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which
search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is
made under section 132A. The provision has also been
made applicable to orders of assessment passed under
clause (b) of section 153B in respect of the assessment year
relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted
under section 132 or requisitioned is made under section
132A.
50.3 Applicability- These amendments will take effect from
the 1st day of June, 2007."
(emphasis supplied)
16. The legislative intent is therefore clear that the legislature
intended that the assessments/reassessments of search and seizure
cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authorities
which also means that the superior authorities should apply their
minds on the material for each separate year for which approval is
sought.
17. A consolidated approval for several years without application of
mind to each assessment year could never have been granted
otherwise the facts of each assessment year become otiose and
redundant.
18. It is a well settled law that if there is a power given to do a
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or
not at all. The origin of this principle is traceable in decision in Taylor
v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and thereafter followed by the Privy
Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor , AIR 1936 PC 253. This
principle has been followed by the Apex Court in a host of decisions
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 19 of 21
vis Rao Shiv Bhadur Singh and Anr vs. state of vindhya Pradesh AI
54 SC 322, Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan AI 961 Sc 1527, State
of U.P. v. Singhara Singh , AIR 1964 SC 358. A Bench of the five
judges in the Apex Court in Captain Sube Singh v. Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi , (2004) 6 SCC 440 has observed as under:
“ In Anjum M.H. Ghaswala a Constitution Bench of this
Court reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests
certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular
manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the
manner provided in the statute itself.”
19. The section 154D of the Income-tax Act prescribes, there has to
be application of mind for each year than a omnibus order clubbing
seven assessment years in the approval cannot be permitted.
20. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has
drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 20.03.2026 passed by
the coordinate bench of this Court, in which the following question of
law were framed:
“ The following substantial questions of law arise in the
appeal:
(i) Whether in the facts of the case, one common
approval for different Assessment Years granted by
the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was
contrary to law?
(ii) In case the answer to the first question is in the
affirmative, whether the lapse is procedural or
substantial warranting annulment of the assessment
proceedings?”
21. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that this question is pending before this Court.
22. In the opinion of the Court, the coordinate bench of this Court
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 20 of 21
has already interpreted the requirements of Section 153D and the
questions as framed by another coordinate bench does not indicate it
as doubted the correctness of the earlier decision. The order also does
not reflect that the earlier decisions were brought to the knowledge
that has formulated the questions.
23. A view has been taken by this Court which is in consonance
with view taken by the Orissa high court and the Allahabad high
court, no question of law survives for consideration.
24. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the ground that no
substantial question of law is arises for consideration.
25. The appeal stands dismissed.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 9, 2026 /bs/ns
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
21.10.2026 16:16
ITA 806/2026 & conn. Page 21 of 21