The Additional Commissioner approved my search assessment along with hundreds of others in a single letter that says nothing but 'approved'. Is that enough under s.153D?
No. Where the approving authority accorded approval to 246 proposed assessments by one letter that merely directed that the orders be passed before limitation and copies sent for record, the Delhi High Court held there was no substantial question of law in the Tribunal's conclusion that the approval was mechanical, and dismissed eighteen Revenue appeals. Approval that neither mentions the seized material nor shows that the draft orders were examined is a ritual, not the safeguard s.153D creates.
Decided by the High Court (Yashwant Varma J and Ravinder Dudeja J) on 2024-07-30, reported as ITA 593/2023, ITA 635/2023, ITA 636/2023, ITA 638/2023 to ITA 645/2023, ITA 652/2023, ITA 653/2023, ITA 659/2023, ITA 14/2023, ITA 2/2024, ITA 3/2024, ITA 17/2024 and ITA 21/2024 (Delhi High Court). It bears on section 153D, section 153A, section 153B, section 151, section 144A, section 264, section 68, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment, Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters.
This is the Delhi High Court decision that the mass-approval line of s.153D cases rests on, and the library did not have it. Its value over the s.153D cases already here is the arithmetic and the anatomy: five approval letters covering 62, 37, 54, 24 and 69 draft orders respectively, 246 in all, and a finding that neither the Assessing Officer's proposals nor the approval letter contained 'any whisper' of the seized material. That is the fact pattern in most central-circle search assessments, and it is checkable from the file the moment you get the approval under an RTI or an inspection. The regime point: the assessments here were framed under s.153A and the approvals are dated February and March 2013, so this is squarely the s.153A/s.153C regime, which governs searches initiated between 1 June 2003 and 31 August 2024. It has no application to a search initiated on or after 1 September 2024 — under the revived Chapter XIV-B the approval requirement is different in kind, being a prior approval under s.158BC(3) of the Additional or Joint Commissioner or Director BEFORE the block notice issues, and there is no s.153D at all. Note also what the Court expressly left open at the end: the effect of s.144A of the Act and of the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 on the mechanical-approval argument. That is the Revenue's remaining line — that the Range Head was involved throughout — and it is not foreclosed.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A batch of eighteen Revenue appeals arose out of a single order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal dated 8 February 2023 covering MDLR Hotels Pvt Ltd, Shivganesh Builders Pvt Ltd, M.M. Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Witness Constructions (P) Ltd, Kartikeya Buildcon (P) Ltd, Witness Builders Pvt Ltd, LKG Builders (P) Ltd, Elite Buildwell Pvt Ltd, Gee Gee Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Ashutosh Developers Pvt Ltd, Shivnandan Buildcon (P) Ltd, Believe Developers and Promoters P Ltd and Gopal Kumar Goyal. The assessments were framed under s.153A. Before the Tribunal the assessees showed that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, New Delhi had granted approval under s.153D by letters dated 25 February 2013 (69 assessment orders), 8 March 2013 (62), 15 March 2013 (37), 18 March 2013 (54) and 21 March 2013 (24) — 246 assessment orders in all — the operative text in each case reading only: 'The above draft orders, as proposed, are hereby accorded approval with the direction to ensure that the orders are passed well before limitation period. Further, copies of final orders so passed be sent to this office for record.' The Tribunal found that neither the requests for approval nor the approvals referred to any seized material, assessment record or other document, and quashed the assessments. The Revenue proposed eight questions of law, the first of which asserted that the Range Head had in fact been fully involved in every aspect of the case, and pointed to observations made in a s.264 revision order and to total additions of Rs 51,45,24,370 that had been deleted on a technical ground.
The Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's view, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeals (para 5). Approval accorded to 246 proposed assessments by a single letter that does no more than direct that the orders be passed before limitation and that copies be sent for record does not answer the requirement of s.153D. The question of the effect and impact of s.144A of the Act and of the provisions of the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 was expressly left open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings (paras 6 and 7).
The Court treated the matter as governed by its own earlier decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt Ltd, which it set out at length (para 4). The reasoning it adopted from that decision is that the sanction of a superior authority is a safeguard, and that satisfaction must be discernible from what the authority actually wrote when it signed. The mere appending of the word 'approved' says nothing (CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd.); rubber-stamping a 'Yes' suggests a decision taken mechanically (Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO); the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal refused to treat a signature under the word 'yes' as valid permission and observed that the authorities had substituted the form for the substance; and an approval that merely echoes the words of the statute reflects no independent application of mind (Ess Advisors (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie v. ACIT). Elaborate reasons are not required, but satisfaction must be recorded, however briefly, because reasons are the link between the material and the conclusion. Applying that to the facts the Tribunal had found — a single approval for 246 draft orders, with no reference in the proposal or in the approval to any seized material — the Court held the Tribunal's conclusion unassailable. It also recorded the legislative history the Tribunal had relied on: before s.153D was inserted with effect from 1 June 2007 there was no approval requirement at all for search assessments, and CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 explains that the provision was introduced so that the superior authority would apply its mind to the material on which the assessment is being made.
We note that the Tribunal has on facts ultimately found that the competent authority chose to accord approval to as many as 246 proposed assessments by way of a single letter of approval.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Where the approving authority accorded approval to 246 proposed assessments by one letter that merely directed that the orders be passed before limitation and copies sent for record, the Delhi High Court held there was no substantial question of law in the Tribunal's conclusion that the approval was mechanical, and dismissed eighteen Revenue appeals. Approval that neither mentions the seized material nor shows that the draft orders were examined is a ritual, not the safeguard s.153D creates. This was decided by the High Court (Yashwant Varma J and Ravinder Dudeja J) and bears on section 153D, section 153A, section 153B, section 151, section 144A, section 264, section 68, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA 593/2023, ITA 635/2023, ITA 636/2023, ITA 638/2023 to ITA 645/2023, ITA 652/2023, ITA 653/2023, ITA 659/2023, ITA 14/2023, ITA 2/2024, ITA 3/2024, ITA 17/2024 and ITA 21/2024 (Delhi High Court). This is the Delhi High Court decision that the mass-approval line of s.153D cases rests on, and the library did not have it. Its value over the s.153D cases already here is the arithmetic and the anatomy: five approval letters covering 62, 37, 54, 24 and 69 draft orders respectively, 246 in all, and a finding that neither the Assessing Officer's proposals nor the approval letter contained 'any whisper' of the seized material. That is the fact pattern in most central-circle search assessments, and it is checkable from the file the moment you get the approval under an RTI or an inspection. The regime point: the assessments here were framed under s.153A and the approvals are dated February and March 2013, so this is squarely the s.153A/s.153C regime, which governs searches initiated between 1 June 2003 and 31 August 2024. It has no application to a search initiated on or after 1 September 2024 — under the revived Chapter XIV-B the approval requirement is different in kind, being a prior approval under s.158BC(3) of the Additional or Joint Commissioner or Director BEFORE the block notice issues, and there is no s.153D at all. Note also what the Court expressly left open at the end: the effect of s.144A of the Act and of the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 on the mechanical-approval argument. That is the Revenue's remaining line — that the Range Head was involved throughout — and it is not foreclosed. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the approval itself. Ask for it in the assessment record, by inspection or under the Right to Information Act; the argument cannot be run on inference.
A batch of eighteen Revenue appeals arose out of a single order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal dated 8 February 2023 covering MDLR Hotels Pvt Ltd, Shivganesh Builders Pvt Ltd, M.M. Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Witness Constructions (P) Ltd, Kartikeya Buildcon (P) Ltd, Witness Builders Pvt Ltd, LKG Builders (P) Ltd, Elite Buildwell Pvt Ltd, Gee Gee Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Ashutosh Developers Pvt Ltd, Shivnandan Buildcon (P) Ltd, Believe Developers and Promoters P Ltd and Gopal Kumar Goyal. The assessments were framed under s.153A. Before the Tribunal the assessees showed that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, New Delhi had granted approval under s.153D by letters dated 25 February 2013 (69 assessment orders), 8 March 2013 (62), 15 March 2013 (37), 18 March 2013 (54) and 21 March 2013 (24) — 246 assessment orders in all — the operative text in each case reading only: 'The above draft orders, as proposed, are hereby accorded approval with the direction to ensure that the orders are passed well before limitation period. Further, copies of final orders so passed be sent to this office for record.' The Tribunal found that neither the requests for approval nor the approvals referred to any seized material, assessment record or other document, and quashed the assessments. The Revenue proposed eight questions of law, the first of which asserted that the Range Head had in fact been fully involved in every aspect of the case, and pointed to observations made in a s.264 revision order and to total additions of Rs 51,45,24,370 that had been deleted on a technical ground. The matter was decided on 2024-07-30 by the High Court (Yashwant Varma J and Ravinder Dudeja J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's view, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeals (para 5). Approval accorded to 246 proposed assessments by a single letter that does no more than direct that the orders be passed before limitation and that copies be sent for record does not answer the requirement of s.153D. The question of the effect and impact of s.144A of the Act and of the provisions of the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 was expressly left open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings (paras 6 and 7).
The Court treated the matter as governed by its own earlier decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt Ltd, which it set out at length (para 4). The reasoning it adopted from that decision is that the sanction of a superior authority is a safeguard, and that satisfaction must be discernible from what the authority actually wrote when it signed. The mere appending of the word 'approved' says nothing (CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd.); rubber-stamping a 'Yes' suggests a decision taken mechanically (Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO); the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal refused to treat a signature under the word 'yes' as valid permission and observed that the authorities had substituted the form for the substance; and an approval that merely echoes the words of the statute reflects no independent application of mind (Ess Advisors (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie v. ACIT). Elaborate reasons are not required, but satisfaction must be recorded, however briefly, because reasons are the link between the material and the conclusion. Applying that to the facts the Tribunal had found — a single approval for 246 draft orders, with no reference in the proposal or in the approval to any seized material — the Court held the Tribunal's conclusion unassailable. It also recorded the legislative history the Tribunal had relied on: before s.153D was inserted with effect from 1 June 2007 there was no approval requirement at all for search assessments, and CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 explains that the provision was introduced so that the superior authority would apply its mind to the material on which the assessment is being made. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We note that the Tribunal has on facts ultimately found that the competent authority chose to accord approval to as many as 246 proposed assessments by way of a single letter of approval." The decision followed or applied Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685 — followed, and extracted at length; Chhugamal Rajpal, (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) — relied upon through Pioneer Town Planners; CIT v. N.C. Cables Ltd. — relied upon through Pioneer Town Planners; Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 472 — relied upon through Pioneer Town Planners; Ess Advisors (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie v. ACIT, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3613 — relied upon through Pioneer Town Planners; Union of India v. M.L. Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836 — quoted through Central India Electric Supply; CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12 March 2008 — relied on for the legislative intent behind s.153D; Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd and Experion Developers P. Ltd. — distinguished (through Pioneer Town Planners).
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-07-30 and is reported as ITA 593/2023, ITA 635/2023, ITA 636/2023, ITA 638/2023 to ITA 645/2023, ITA 652/2023, ITA 653/2023, ITA 659/2023, ITA 14/2023, ITA 2/2024, ITA 3/2024, ITA 17/2024 and ITA 21/2024 (Delhi High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 153D, section 153A, section 153B, section 151, section 144A, section 264, section 68, section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's view, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeals (para 5). Approval accorded to 246 proposed assessments by a single letter that does no more than direct that the orders be passed before limitation and that copies be sent for record does not answer the requirement of s.153D. The question of the effect and impact of s.144A of the Act and of the provisions of the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 was expressly left open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings (paras 6 and 7). It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment, Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters, on section 153D, section 153A, section 153B, section 151, section 144A, section 264, section 68, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Yashwant Varma J and Ravinder Dudeja J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Count what the letter covers. Note the number of draft orders, the number of assessees and the number of assessment years in each approval, and the date it bears against the date the proposals went up. Check whether the approval or the covering proposal refers to any seized material, appraisal report or assessment record. The Delhi High Court's point was that there was no whisper of it in either. Take the point as an additional ground before the Tribunal if it was not taken below; it goes to jurisdiction and does not need fresh facts once the approval is on record. Expect the Revenue to answer with s.144A and the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 to show the Range Head's involvement. The Court kept that question open, so meet it on the file rather than assuming it is closed. If your search was initiated on or after 1 September 2024, do not plead s.153D. Plead instead that the s.158BC(3) approval of the Additional or Joint Commissioner or Director was not obtained before the block notice was issued. For a search initiated between 1 April 2021 and 31 August 2024 there is no s.153D either: s.152(3) makes the case a s.147 to s.151 reassessment, so the approval to test is the s.151 sanction.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. This one needs care. The judgment is named often and applied rarely. Where it appears in later Tribunal orders it appears in counsel's list of authorities and the Bench decides on other precedent: Lenient Consultants Pvt Ltd v DCIT (Tribunal, Delhi, 17 September 2025), where it sits at paragraph 5 of the citation list and the Bench decided on Siddharth Gupta; Pushpanjali Constructions Pvt Ltd v DCIT (Tribunal, Delhi, 19 September 2025), where it is at paragraph 11 of the submissions and the Bench decided on PCIT v Shiv Kumar Nayyar; and ACIT v Deepa Talwar (Tribunal, Delhi, 30 January 2026), where it is at paragraph 10 of counsel's compilation and the Bench followed the Third Member decision in Dheeraj Chaudhary. No Bench has been found adopting this judgment as a ground of its own decision, so it is not recorded as good law, even though nothing adverse has been found either. No Supreme Court matter surfaced. Two things follow. The proposition is being worked out in the Tribunal on a line of its own authorities, so a practitioner should cite those and use this judgment as support rather than as the foundation. And because the point goes to the validity of the approval and so of the assessment, rather than to the additions, it has to be taken as a ground in terms: an assessment made under s.153A for a year falling within the s.153B period is not saved by the merits, but nor is the objection kept alive by arguing only the s.68 additions. Nothing here bears on approval under s.151, on directions under s.144A or on revision under s.264, each of which runs on its own conditions, and an appeal under s.260A on this point will turn on the record of what the approving authority actually did. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The document is a common order in eighteen appeals and much of it consists of long extracts: the eight questions of law proposed by the Revenue, paras 13 to 21 of the Tribunal's order of 8 February 2023, CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, and paras 13 to 23 of the Court's earlier decision in Pioneer Town Planners. The Court's own words occupy only paras 1 to 7. The key quote is taken from para 2, which is the Court's own sentence and not part of any extract. Two typographical oddities appear in the printed text and have not been corrected in the quote used: within the Tribunal's extract the approval date is rendered '08.03.7.013' and one running head carries an unrelated ITA number ('6 ITA. No. 4061/Mum/2012'). Neither affects the holding. The order lists eighteen appeals; ITA 14/2023 appears in the list of matters disposed of at the head of the order but not in the numbered cause titles. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's view, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeals (para 5). Approval accorded to 246 proposed assessments by a single letter that does no more than direct that the orders be passed before limitation and that copies be sent for record does not answer the requirement of s.153D. The question of the effect and impact of s.144A of the Act and of the provisions of the Search and Seizure Manual 2007 was expressly left open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings (paras 6 and 7).
TaxSphere, “PCIT v MDLR Hotels Pvt Ltd”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pcit-v-mdlr-hotels-153d-single-approval-for-246-draft-orders/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I applied under s.144A and the Additional Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer in my favour. Two years later the department has issued a s.148 notice on exactly the same point. Can it do that?
On amalgamation we issued shares at face value against net assets worth far more. The AO has taxed the excess under s.56(2)(viib). Does that provision apply to a scheme of amalgamation at all?
The Finance Act 2026 seems to have changed the reassessment rules backwards in time. What exactly did it change, from which dates, and which of my grounds has it taken away?
The Department says my search assessment is in time because it made a reference to a foreign tax authority and gets a year excluded under s.153B. The reference was for years the treaty did not cover. Does the exclusion still apply?
