High Court of Delhi · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2, Delhi v. M/s. Believe Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
ITA 555/2025 ·
Believe Constructions AY 2007–08: Revenue appeal dismissed on covered section 153D mechanical-approval issue.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Revenue challenged the common ITAT order dated 8 February 2023 in ITA 3084/Del/2016 and CO 261/Del/2016 for AY 2007–08. An 812-day re-filing delay was condoned. Counsel accepted that MDLR Hotels and King Buildcon covered the proposed questions concerning section 153D approval.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The reproduced MDLR reasoning sustained findings of mechanical approval, with no reference to seized material or assessment records demonstrating application of mind. It relied on approval-safeguard authorities, including Pioneer Town Planners. The present case arose from the same common ITAT order.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed following MDLR Hotels and King Buildcon; no substantial question of law arose.
4. OUTCOME
Assessee retained the Tribunal’s relief on the defective-approval issue.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Review the approval record, not merely its length
The defect concerned absence of meaningful application of mind to material and proposals. The reproduced reasoning permits brief recorded satisfaction; it should not be turned into a universal requirement for an elaborate judgment by the approving officer.
Source: PDF p. 12
Keep the statutory contexts separate
Section 153D governs the present approval challenge. Section 151 reassessment-sanction decisions are reproduced as reasoning on mechanical approval, rather than proof that the two statutory processes are interchangeable.
Source: PDF p. 12
Preserve what the source leaves unresolved
The reproduced discussion leaves section 144A and the Search and Seizure Manual question open. It also calls approval for 246 assessments a single letter while listing five dated groups totalling 246; that internal description should not be silently harmonised.
Source: PDF p. 12
Source and verification
12-page official High Court of Delhi order/judgment PDF (20251029_DLHC011036002023.pdf, 148,379 bytes).
Original PDF: 12 pages · SHA-256: 5a6d86b8b611ab20aabf7b6daccbce8b2b621aa0d4e7a8c035f691e56ab86b71
Complete source text and every original page visually reviewed; identity and SHA-256 checked. AI-assisted source analysis.
Section 153D approval is decisive. Section 151 authorities are reproduced by analogy; the impact of section 144A and the Search and Seizure Manual, 2007 was expressly left open in the reproduced decision.
Subsequent judicial treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.