Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order, while the assessee filed a Cross Objection challenging the validity of approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the approval was mechanical, given simultaneously for 69 cases, including his brothers, without proper application of mind.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and not in accordance with the law, citing similar findings in the cases of the assessee's brothers. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objection was sustained, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned assessment order was quashed.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section 153D for draft assessment orders, specifically whether it was mechanical and lacked application of mind.
Sections Cited
153D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Vs Shri Sumit Gupta, Circle-4(2), 14, Sainik Farm, New Delhi. Khanpur, New Delhi – 110 062. PAN : ABHPG7925N CO No.15/Del/2025 ( Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sumit Gupta, Vs. DCIT, 14, Sainik Farm, Circle-4(2), Khanpur, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. PAN : ABHPG7925N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 12.08.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, Delhi. The assessee has filed the Cross Objection.
At the time of hearing, the ld. AR has pointed out about ground No.1 in Cross Objection which is reproduced for convenience as follows:- “That in view of the single approval u/s 153D of Addl. CIT on same date in 69 No. of cases and approval being mechanical, without application of mind and without mentioning even a single word showing the examination of relevant records before granting approval, makes the approval invalid and unsustainable in law.”
The ld. AR has pointed out that vide approval dated 29.12.2019, draft assessment orders in regard to several assessees covered by Brindavan group of cases search were received and approval was granted on the same day. The copy of approval u/s 153D dated 29.12.2019 is on record and the same show that apart from the assessee, his brother Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Amit Gupta were also subject to search and by the same letter approval was granted. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, vide order dated 06.02.2025 and in the case of Amit Gupta, vide order dated 28.05.2025, the coordinate Benches have considered the grant of approval to be not in accordance with the law and in mechanical exercise of the powers.
Although the ld. DR has supported the granting of approval submitting that the AO is always briefing the seniors and approval is a mere administrative need, however, all these aspects have been considered in the coordinate Bench decision and we consider no case of distinction is made out. The ground raised in CO is, thus, sustained. The Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed.