Delhi ITAT Quashes 21 Search Assessments: Common Approval Under Section 153D Declared Invalid

Case Overview

Case Name: Virender Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year: 2012-13
Forum: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench
Relevant Provisions: Section 153D, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Background and Procedural History

Three assessees — S/Shri Virender Gupta, Praveen Kumar Gupta, and Munni Lal — jointly filed twenty-one miscellaneous applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bearing Misc. Application Numbers 225 to 245/Del/2026. These applications collectively sought the recall of a common order previously passed by the Tribunal on 17.11.2025, which had allowed their corresponding main appeals — ITA Nos. 4224 to 4244/DEL/2026 — but only for statistical purposes, directing restoration of the matters before the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The fundamental grievance raised by all three assessees was identical: the earlier Tribunal order, while remanding the cases, had entirely overlooked and left unadjudicated an additional legal ground that had been formally raised by the assessees. This legal ground specifically challenged the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had served as the foundation for framing all the impugned assessments under Section 153A / Section 153C, as the case may be.

Whether a common approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, covering multiple assessees and multiple assessment years in a single consolidated order, satisfies the statutory mandate — or whether individual, assessee-specific and year-specific approvals are legally required?

Tribunal's Findings on Recall Under Section 254(2)

Upon hearing both the assessees and the Revenue, and on perusal of the relevant case files, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessees had indeed raised the additional legal ground in their applications dated 12.11.2025, filed before the Tribunal. Critically, the Revenue did not rebut this factual position — i.e., that the legal ground had been duly raised but remained entirely undecided in the earlier common order dated 17.11.2025.