M/S SHAKUNTALAM INVESTMENT AND LEASING LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, DELHI

It is pertinent to submit here that, single assessee has been granted It is pertinent to submit here that, single assessee has been granted It is pertinent to submit here that, single assessee has been granted approval on single day. Thus, it cannot he considered by any stretch of approval on single day. Thus, it cannot he considered by any stretch of approval on single day. Thus, it cannot he considered by any stretch of imagination that the approving authority was not in a position to apply his at the approving authority was not in a position to apply his at the approving authority was not in a position to apply his mind to the facts of the case and issues involved while granting approval mind to the facts of the case and issues involved while granting approval mind to the facts of the case and issues involved while granting approval under section 153D of the Act. The approving authority had sufficient time under section 153D of the Act. The approving authority had sufficient time under section 153D of the Act. The approving authority had sufficient time to go through all the records and relevant ma to go through all the records and relevant material to arrive at decision terial to arrive at decision granting approval Under Section 153D of the I.T Act in judicious manner granting approval Under Section 153D of the I.T Act in judicious manner granting approval Under Section 153D of the I.T Act in judicious manner in the instant case.

In this regard, it is further submitted that on perusal of case laws In this regard, it is further submitted that on perusal of case laws In this regard, it is further submitted that on perusal of case laws on the issue of requirements for proper approval under section 153D, it is on the issue of requirements for proper approval under section 153D, it is on the issue of requirements for proper approval under section 153D, it is found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent mind while granting authority is required to apply his/her independent mind while granting authority is required to apply his/her independent mind while granting such an approval. Thus, all the cases have been decided on this point by roval. Thus, all the cases have been decided on this point by roval. Thus, all the cases have been decided on this point by Hon’ble Tribunal and Hon’ble High court in light of peculiar facts of those Hon’ble Tribunal and Hon’ble High court in light of peculiar facts of those Hon’ble Tribunal and Hon’ble High court in light of peculiar facts of those cases only. Some of such peculiar facts of such cases are outlined here in cases only. Some of such peculiar facts of such cases are outlined here in cases only. Some of such peculiar facts of such cases are outlined here in under to emphasize upon distinguishing natu under to emphasize upon distinguishing nature of facts of instant cases re of facts of instant cases from those cases. :

We therefore make the position clear that non 26. We therefore make the position clear that non-compliance of the compliance of the procedure indicated in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. ’s case procedure indicated in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. ’s case procedure indicated in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. ’s case (supra) would not make the order void or non (supra) would not make the order void or non-est. Such a violation in est. Such a violation in the matter of procedure is only an irregularity which could be cured the matter of procedure is only an irregularity which could be cured the matter of procedure is only an irregularity which could be cured by remitting the matter to the aut by remitting the matter to the authority.

It is submitted that Central Ranges are specialized ranges It is submitted that Central Ranges are specialized ranges It is submitted that Central Ranges are specialized ranges designated for assessment of search and seizure cases. The structure designated for assessment of search and seizure cases. The structure designated for assessment of search and seizure cases. The structure ensures deep involvement of the Joint Commissioner with each case. ensures deep involvement of the Joint Commissioner with each case. ensures deep involvement of the Joint Commissioner with each case. These are not routine as These are not routine assessments; the number of cases is limited, sessments; the number of cases is limited, and the JCIT plays a crucial role throughout the lifecycle of the case. and the JCIT plays a crucial role throughout the lifecycle of the case. and the JCIT plays a crucial role throughout the lifecycle of the case. The assumption by the assessee that the JCIT was a stranger to the The assumption by the assessee that the JCIT was a stranger to the The assumption by the assessee that the JCIT was a stranger to the assessment work is factually erroneous and perverse. It is further assessment work is factually erroneous and perverse. It is further assessment work is factually erroneous and perverse. It is further submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the ed that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the ed that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number of cases approved in a day were high. There ground that number of cases approved in a day were high. There ground that number of cases approved in a day were high. There cannot be any threshold limit set for the same. How many cases will cannot be any threshold limit set for the same. How many cases wil cannot be any threshold limit set for the same. How many cases wil be considered unreasonably high and how many cases will be be considered unreasonably high and how many cases will be be considered unreasonably high and how many cases will be considered reasonable? It is submitted that every approval needs to considered reasonable? It is submitted that every approval needs to considered reasonable? It is submitted that every approval needs to be examined in light of its peculiar facts such as number of issue be examined in light of its peculiar facts such as number of issue be examined in light of its peculiar facts such as number of issue involved, nature of issue involved, modus involved, nature of issue involved, modus-operandi involved, operandi involved, number of cases involved and inter of cases involved and inter-relationship among facts of such cases. If relationship among facts of such cases. If identical issues are involved involving same modus identical issues are involved involving same modus-operandi and operandi and cases are of same search group only, it would not be unreasonable to cases are of same search group only, it would not be unreasonable to cases are of same search group only, it would not be unreasonable to consider that an approving authority will be consider that an approving authority will be able to apply its able to apply its independent mind judiciously to relatively larger number of cases in independent mind judiciously to relatively larger number of cases in independent mind judiciously to relatively larger number of cases in a single day. Ultimately, it boils down to factual matrix of the cases a single day. Ultimately, it boils down to factual matrix of the cases a single day. Ultimately, it boils down to factual matrix of the cases sent for approval. In the instant case, in light of the factual matrix sent for approval. In the instant case, in light of the factual matrix sent for approval. In the instant case, in light of the factual matrix that additions were made i that additions were made in different cases of the group on the same n different cases of the group on the same ground based on same factual position with regard to same ground based on same factual position with regard to same ground based on same factual position with regard to same accommodation entry provider and involving same modus accommodation entry provider and involving same modus- -operandi, it would be justified to consider that the approving authority would it would be justified to consider that the approving authority would it would be justified to consider that the approving authority would have been in a positio have been in a position to apply his mind to all such cases sent for n to apply his mind to all such cases sent for approval by the AO on the same day, particularly when number of approval by the AO on the same day, particularly when number of approval by the AO on the same day, particularly when number of such cases is not too high and facts/issues involved are in the such cases is not too high and facts/issues involved are in the such cases is not too high and facts/issues involved are in the knowledge of approving authority beforehand i.e. before receiving knowledge of approving authority beforehand i.e. before receiving knowledge of approving authority beforehand i.e. before receiving proposal for approval. proval.

It is submitted that Section 153D does not prescribe any It is submitted that Section 153D does not prescribe any It is submitted that Section 153D does not prescribe any specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled. approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled.

In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under Section 153D. There is no finding that the assessment was so Section 153D. There is no finding that the assessment was so Section 153D. There is no finding that the assessment was so fundamentally flawed as to render it unfit for any reasonable fundamentally flawed as to render it unfit for any reasonable fundamentally flawed as to render it unfit for any reasonable authority to approve it. This is not a case where Approval has not authority to approve it. This is not a case where Approval has not authority to approve it. This is not a case where Approval has not been granted.

It is relevant to point out that approval u/s 153D of the Act It is relevant to point out that approval u/s 153D of the Act It is relevant to point out that approval u/s 153D of the Act needs to be put at a different pedestrian in comparison to sanction u/s needs to be put at a different pedestrian in comparison to sanction u/s needs to be put at a different pedestrian in comparison to sanction u/s 151 of the Act. Section 151 deals with prior approval for issuing 151 of the Act. Section 151 deals with prior approval for issuing 151 of the Act. Section 151 deals with prior approval for issuing notices for reopeni notices for reopening assessments (such as under section 148). The ng assessments (such as under section 148). The approval here is for cases where the Assessing Officer believes approval here is for cases where the Assessing Officer believes approval here is for cases where the Assessing Officer believes income has escaped assessment; higher authorities’ consent is income has escaped assessment; higher authorities’ consent is income has escaped assessment; higher authorities’ consent is required before such notices are issued. If the sanction u/s 151 is not required before such notices are issued. If the sanction u/s 151 is not required before such notices are issued. If the sanction u/s 151 is not proper, the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 has been held to be e jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 has been held to be e jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 has been held to be void. However, the approval u/s 153D has to be granted by the Ld. void. However, the approval u/s 153D has to be granted by the Ld. void. However, the approval u/s 153D has to be granted by the Ld. JCIT once the draft assessment order is prepared by the Ld. JCIT once the draft assessment order is prepared by the Ld. JCIT once the draft assessment order is prepared by the Ld. Jurisdictional Officer making the assessments u/s 153A/153C of the Jurisdictional Officer making the assessments u/s 153A/153C of the Jurisdictional Officer making the assessments u/s 153A/153C of the Act. In these cases, there is no challenge to the validity of search, In these cases, there is no challenge to the validity of search, In these cases, there is no challenge to the validity of search, procedure followed by the Department in search, however the only procedure followed by the Department in search, however the only procedure followed by the Department in search, however the only challenge raised by the assessee in the additional ground before this challenge raised by the assessee in the additional ground before this challenge raised by the assessee in the additional ground before this Hon’ble Tribunal is that the approval granted by Ld. JCIT is Hon’ble Tribunal is that the approval granted by Ld. JC Hon’ble Tribunal is that the approval granted by Ld. JC mechanical. If the said approval is held to be mechanical, then the mechanical. If the said approval is held to be mechanical, then the mechanical. If the said approval is held to be mechanical, then the submissions of the Revenue is that the matters may be remanded back submissions of the Revenue is that the matters may be remanded back submissions of the Revenue is that the matters may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer at the stage of Draft Assessment order which to the Assessing Officer at the stage of Draft Assessment order which to the Assessing Officer at the stage of Draft Assessment order which shall not prejudice the assessee and also pr shall not prejudice the assessee and also protect the interest of otect the interest of Revenue.

Therefore, it is submitted that even if there were any Therefore, it is submitted that even if there were any Therefore, it is submitted that even if there were any procedural infirmities, the same do not constitute jurisdictional procedural infirmities, the same do not constitute jurisdictional procedural infirmities, the same do not constitute jurisdictional defects. The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly remand the matter for fresh defects. The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly remand the matter for fresh defects. The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly remand the matter for fresh approval rather than annulling approval rather than annulling the entire assessment.

After going through the material on record, it is very much After going through the material on record, it is very much After going through the material on record, it is very much apparent that after the search and seizure operation in Sachdeva apparent that after the search and seizure operation in Sachdeva apparent that after the search and seizure operation in Sachdeva Group of cases on 31.08.2017 the search assessments were initiated Group of cases on 31.08.2017 the search assessments were initiated Group of cases on 31.08.2017 the search assessments were initiated in the case of the present assesse. As from the copy of approval in the case of the present assesse. As from the copy of approval in the case of the present assesse. As from the copy of approval reproduced above it is apparent that approval was sought for AY reproduced above it is apparent that approval was sought for AY reproduced above it is apparent that approval was sought for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19 by letter dated 25.12.2019 and vide approval 19 by letter dated 25.12.2019 and vide approval 19 by letter dated 25.12.2019 and vide approval letter dated 26.12.2019 the approval was granted for all these year in letter dated 26.12.2019 the approval was granted for all these year in letter dated 26.12.2019 the approval was granted for all these year in a consolidated manner. We find that attached to the letter dated a consolidated manner. We find that attached to the lett a consolidated manner. We find that attached to the lett 25.12.2019, the AO has annexed a check list and there is no mention 25.12.2019, the AO has annexed a check list and there is no mention 25.12.2019, the AO has annexed a check list and there is no mention that the assessment record was also forwarded to the approving that the assessment record was also forwarded to the approving that the assessment record was also forwarded to the approving authority. This check list mentions that “seized material including soft authority. This check list mentions that “seized material including soft authority. This check list mentions that “seized material including soft date, panchnama and its annexure, statement date, panchnama and its annexure, statements recorded have been s recorded have been examined”, by the AO. examined”, by the AO.

Now as a matter of fact the assessment orders do not refer to Now as a matter of fact the assessment orders do not refer to Now as a matter of fact the assessment orders do not refer to any such materials or facts. The head of additions in AY 2016-17 are any such materials or facts. The head of additions in AY 2016 any such materials or facts. The head of additions in AY 2016 unsecured loans, share application money and depreciation. While in unsecured loans, share application money and depreciation. While in unsecured loans, share application money and depreciation. While in AY 2017-18 the additions are under the head share application money 8 the additions are under the head share application money 8 the additions are under the head share application money and depreciation. These additions have foundation in the financials and depreciation. These additions have foundation in the financials and depreciation. These additions have foundation in the financials and there is reference of no seized material, what to talk of soft data, and there is reference of no seized material, what to talk of soft data, and there is reference of no seized material, what to talk of soft data, as referred in letter seeking approval. The approval is as referred in letter seeking approval. The approval is granted on the granted on the basis of this checklist and letter, which in itself exhibit mechanical basis of this checklist and letter, which in itself exhibit mechanical basis of this checklist and letter, which in itself exhibit mechanical approach of the AO. Then by one letter approval was given for years approach of the AO. Then by one letter approval was given for years approach of the AO. Then by one letter approval was given for years in hand along with other AYs. in hand along with other AYs. 7. We are of the considered view that all the authorities under the We are of the considered view that all the authorities under the We are of the considered view that all the authorities under the Act are quasi judicial authorities and all the powers under the Act are quasi judicial authorities and all the powers under the Act are quasi judicial authorities and all the powers under the Act that they exercise arise by way of specific provision and vest them that they exercise arise by way of specific provision and vest them that they exercise arise by way of specific provision and vest them quasi judicial authority only. They may be administrative in the quasi judicial authority only. They may be administrative in the quasi judicial authority only. They may be administrative in the nature that they do not require any opportunity of hearing to the nature that they do not require any opportunity of hearing nature that they do not require any opportunity of hearing affected parties and on the basis of any lack of opportunity to the affected parties and on the basis of any lack of opportunity to the affected parties and on the basis of any lack of opportunity to the affected parties the exercise of quasi judicial powers cannot be affected parties the exercise of quasi judicial powers cannot be affected parties the exercise of quasi judicial powers cannot be questioned, but, in any case, every order of quasi judicial authority questioned, but, in any case, every order of quasi judicial authority questioned, but, in any case, every order of quasi judicial authority should be self speaking, if not reasoned and should be self speaking, if not reasoned and indicative of the fact or indicative of the fact or otherwise reflecting from the circumstances that the said quasi otherwise reflecting from the circumstances that the said quasi otherwise reflecting from the circumstances that the said quasi judicial authority vested with powers under the Act has diligently judicial authority vested with powers under the Act has diligently judicial authority vested with powers under the Act has diligently gone through the record and based on independent examination of gone through the record and based on independent examination of gone through the record and based on independent examination of assessment record exercises the pow assessment record exercises the powers. The manner in which the ers. The manner in which the approval has been granted and conveyed to the AO shows that based approval has been granted and conveyed to the AO shows that based approval has been granted and conveyed to the AO shows that based on the request alone the approval has been granted. Certainly some on the request alone the approval has been granted. Certainly some on the request alone the approval has been granted. Certainly some supervision may be there in assessment proceedings but that does not supervision may be there in assessment proceedings but that does not supervision may be there in assessment proceedings but that does not lead to a situation that lead to a situation that while granting approval no further while granting approval no further examination of draft assessment order is needed. examination of draft assessment order is needed. 8. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024 (Del), vide order PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024 (Del), vide order PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA No. 285/2024 (Del), vide order dated 15.05.2024, has decided the dated 15.05.2024, has decided the similar legal issue in favour of the similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant ratio of the Hon'ble assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant ratio of the Hon'ble assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reproduced below: Delhi High Court is reproduced below:- "15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal "15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal "15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate ping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate ping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind." application of mind." 9. Then, in the case of ACIT, Circle Then, in the case of ACIT, Circle-1 (2) Vs. Serajuddin and 1 (2) Vs. Serajuddin and Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No. Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No. Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No. 44989/2023 vide order dated 28/11/2023, dismissed the Appeal 44989/2023 vide order dated 28/11/2023, dismissed the A 44989/2023 vide order dated 28/11/2023, dismissed the A filed by the Department of Revenue against the order dated filed by the Department of Revenue against the order dated 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 15/03/2023 in ITA No. 43/2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court 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 of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had quashed of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had quashed the Assessment Order on the ground of inadequacy in procedure the Assessment Order on the ground of inadequacy in procedure the Assessment Order on the ground of inadequacy in procedure adopted for issuing approval u/s 153D of the Act by expressing dopted for issuing approval u/s 153D of the Act by expressing dopted for issuing approval u/s 153D of the Act by expressing discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act. placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act. placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act. 10. A coordinate Bench in the case of Sant Lal Aggarwal in ITA A coordinate Bench in the case of Sant Lal Aggarwal in ITA A coordinate Bench in the case of Sant Lal Aggarwal in ITA No.6196 & 6197/Del/2017, order dated 31.07.2025 for AY 2009 & 6197/Del/2017, order dated 31.07.2025 for AY 2009-10 & 6197/Del/2017, order dated 31.07.2025 for AY 2009 and 2010-11 has considered another decision of the coordinate 11 has considered another decision of the coordinate 11 has considered another decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Sant Lal Aggarwal, ITA Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Sant Lal Aggarwal, ITA Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Sant Lal Aggarwal, ITA No.6195/Del/2017 wherein all the contentions as raised by assesse No.6195/Del/2017 wherein all the contentions as raised by assesse No.6195/Del/2017 wherein all the contentions as raised by assesse have been considere have been considered. As for convenience, the findings in the case d. As for convenience, the findings in the case of Sant Lal Aggarwal in ITA No.6195/Del/2017 are reproduced of Sant Lal Aggarwal in ITA No.6195/Del/2017 are reproduced of Sant Lal Aggarwal in ITA No.6195/Del/2017 are reproduced below:- “10. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the assessees‟ “10. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the assessees “10. On perusal of the last page of the assessment order of the assessees before us for the year under consideration, we find that the ld Additional before us for the year under consideration, we find that the ld A before us for the year under consideration, we find that the ld A CIT, Central Range CIT, Central Range-4, Delhi had granted approval in terms of Section 4, Delhi had granted approval in terms of Section 153D of the Act for all the cases for all assessment years vide consolidated 153D of the Act for all the cases for all assessment years vide consolidated 153D of the Act for all the cases for all assessment years vide consolidated approval in Approval No. 153D/CC approval in Approval No. 153D/CC-09/Jagat Group/2012- 13/996 dated 13/996 dated 28.03.2013. This fact is very muc 28.03.2013. This fact is very much evident from the last page of the h evident from the last page of the assessment order for various assessees‟ for various assessment years. assessment order for various assessees for various assessment years. Hence, it is very clear that a common approval was given by the ld Addl. Hence, it is very clear that a common approval was given by the ld Addl. Hence, it is very clear that a common approval was given by the ld Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act vide approval No. 996 dated 28.03.2013 for all the CIT u/s 153D of the Act vide approval No. 996 dated 28.03.2013 for all the CIT u/s 153D of the Act vide approval No. 996 dated 28.03.2013 for all the assessees‟ before us for various assessment years. This goes to prove that before us for various assessment years. This goes to prove that before us for various assessment years. This goes to prove that the approval u/s 153D has not been given by the ld Addl. CIT for „each the approval u/s 153D has not been given by the ld Addl. CIT for „each the approval u/s 153D has not been given by the ld Addl. CIT for „each assessment year‟ and for „each assessee ‟ and for „each assessee‟ separately which is mandate of separately which is mandate of the provisions of Section 153D of the Ac the provisions of Section 153D of the Act. This issue is no longer res integra t. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case in view of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi of PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi of PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi HC); decision of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. HC); decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Subodh Agarwal reported in 149 taxmann.com 373 (All. HC); PCIT Vs. odh Agarwal reported in 149 taxmann.com 373 (All. HC); PCIT Vs. odh Agarwal reported in 149 taxmann.com 373 (All. HC); PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta reported in 147 taxmann.com 288 (All. HC) and PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta reported in 147 taxmann.com 288 (All. HC) and PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta reported in 147 taxmann.com 288 (All. HC) and PCIT Vs. Sidharath Gupta reported 147 taxmann 305 (All. HC), among others. Sidharath Gupta reported 147 taxmann 305 (All. HC), among others. Sidharath Gupta reported 147 taxmann 305 (All. HC), among others. 11. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently argued that very exist 11. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently argued that very existence of high ence of high presumption of law which is also codified u/s 114(e) of the then Indian presumption of law which is also codified u/s 114(e) of the then Indian presumption of law which is also codified u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Evidence Act, 1872 that all official acts are regularly performed and that all official acts are regularly performed and therefore, the Tribunal had to accept that the pr therefore, the Tribunal had to accept that the presumption of approval are esumption of approval are validly granted. The ld DR further stated that merely because the approvals validly granted. The ld DR further stated that merely because the approvals validly granted. The ld DR further stated that merely because the approvals were granted by one letter does not mean that it was not granted for each were granted by one letter does not mean that it was not granted for each were granted by one letter does not mean that it was not granted for each assessment year. 12. As far as the issue of presumption 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reaso only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a ‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year", then it would render the approval given for "each assessment year", then it would render the approval given for "each assessment year", then it would render the requirement of passing an order fo requirement of passing an order for "each assessment year" with prior r "each assessment year" with prior approval u/s 153D of the Act, nugatory. Therefore, the obligation on the of the Act, nugatory. Therefore, the obligation on the of the Act, nugatory. Therefore, the obligation on the approving authority is to verify the draft assessment order of each approving authority is to verify the draft assessment order of each approving authority is to verify the draft assessment order of each assessment year together with the related seized document to ascertain assessment year together with the related seized document to ascertain assessment year together with the related seized document to ascertain whether it complies with law as well as the procedure laid do whether it complies with law as well as the procedure laid down. Hence it is wn. Hence it is established that the action of the ld Additional CIT in granting common established that the action of the ld Additional CIT in granting common established that the action of the ld Additional CIT in granting common approval for all the assessment years for various assessees‟ in a approval for all the assessment years for various assessees approval for all the assessment years for various assessees mechanical manner without application of mind is writ large. The relevant mechanical manner without application of mind is writ large. The relevant mechanical manner without application of mind is writ large. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT observations of the Hon Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del HC) are as Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del HC) are as Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del HC) are as under:- "11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an "11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an "11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for "each assessment year" of the Act has to be granted for "each assessment year" of the Act has to be granted for "each assessment year" referred to in clause (b) of sub referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of cial to refer to the decision of the High Court of cial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Pr. CIT v. Sapna Pr. CIT v. Sapna Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288/[2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288/[2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288/[2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which captures with precision the s which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision cope of the concerned provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase and more significantly, the import of the phrase- "each assessment "each assessment year" used in the language of year" used in the language of Section 153D of the Act. The relevant of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision the said decision are reproduced as under:-

It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) 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 refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the that the approval under Section 153D Section 153D of the Act therein was granted of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a without any independent application of mind. The Court took a without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord approval mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible l mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible l mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible for the said authority to have perused and appraised the records of for the said authority to have perused and appraised the records of 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 85 cases in a single day. It was explicitly held that the authority 85 cases in a single day. It was explicitly held that the authority granting approval has to apply its mind for "each assessment year" granting approval has to apply its mind for "each assessment year granting approval has to apply its mind for "each assessment year for "each assessee" separately. for "each assessee" separately. 13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa 13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa 13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin & Co. [2023] High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin & Co. [2023] High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin & Co. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146/292 Taxman 566/454 ITR 312/SCC OnLine 150 taxmann.com 146/292 Taxman 566/454 ITR 312/SCC OnLine 150 taxmann.com 146/292 Taxman 566/454 ITR 312/SCC OnLine Ori 992 to understand the exposition Ori 992 to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under: Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:- *** 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision in preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case of the case of Serajuddin & Co. (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Serajuddin & Co. (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Serajuddin & Co. (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 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 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft asse approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment ssment orders were sent, has observed as under: orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. "10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. "10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of the Act which is enclosed at page of the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper book of the 36 of the paper book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states assessee. The said letter clearly states that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for 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 seven assessment years in the case of the assessee and for seven seven assessment years in the case of the assessee and for seven assessment years in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyar. It is also assessment years in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyar. It is also assessment years in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the , wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 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 itself. This fact is not in dispute before us. Of these 43 cases, as itself. This fact is not in dispute before us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from page 36 of the paper evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the book which contains the approval u/s 153D, approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessees, which information is not available befo assessees, which information is not available before us. In any re us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of disp for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before ute before us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together." 17. Notably, the order of ap 17. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was proval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011 signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011 to 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to 18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to 18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to make any mention of make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent 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 application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the in a single day which is evident from the findings of the in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above. ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above. 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to ial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to ial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our find any substantial question of law which would merit our find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration." 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we have no hesitation in have no hesitation in holding that the approval holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has not been granted for each of the Act has not been granted for each of the assessment year which is in violation of provisions of of the assessment year which is in violation of provisions of Section 153D Section 153D of the Act itself thereby making the approval being granted in a mechanical the Act itself thereby making the approval being granted in a mechanical the Act itself thereby making the approval being granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Hence, additional ground raised manner without due application of mind. Hence, additional ground raised manner without due application of mind. Hence, additional ground raised by the various assessees‟ before us in this regard is hereby allowed. by the various assessees before us in this regard is hereby allowed. he assessment framed for these assessees‟ are hereby ‟ are hereby Consequentially the assessment framed for these assessees allowed for AY 2009 allowed for AY 2009-10. Since, the quantum assessments are quashed, the 10. Since, the quantum assessments are quashed, the penalty appeals would have no legs to stand. Since, the assessments are penalty appeals would have no legs to stand. Since, the assessments are penalty appeals would have no legs to stand. Since, the assessments are quashed based on additional ground, the other grounds raised by the quashed based on additional ground, the other grounds raise quashed based on additional ground, the other grounds raise assessee as well as revenue need not be gone into and they are left open.” assessee as well as revenue need not be gone into and they are left open.” assessee as well as revenue need not be gone into and they are left open.” 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion of facts and now settled In the light of the aforesaid discussion of facts and now settled In the light of the aforesaid discussion of facts and now settled principles of law, we hold that the approval granted u/s 153D of the principles of law, we hold that the approval granted u/s 153D of the principles of law, we hold that the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act, is vitiated and thus are inc Act, is vitiated and thus are inclined to sustain the additional ground lined to sustain the additional ground in the appeals in hand. The appeals are allowed. The impugned in the appeals in hand. The appeals are allowed. The impugned in the appeals in hand. The appeals are allowed. The impugned assessments are quashed assessments are quashed….”

The aforesaid, pointed out, facts do not indicate The aforesaid, pointed out, facts do not indicate The aforesaid, pointed out, facts do not indicate insufficiency of reasons, but mere mechanical manner in which insufficiency of reasons, but mere mechanical manner in which insufficiency of reasons, but mere mechanical manner in which approval is granted. The law in this regard is settled that such approval is granted. The law in this regard is settled that su approval is granted. The law in this regard is settled that su mechanical exercise of powers u/s 153D of the Act, vitiates the mechanical exercise of powers u/s 153D of the Act, vitiates the mechanical exercise of powers u/s 153D of the Act, vitiates the assessment order. Reliance can be placed on decisions in Asst. assessment order. Reliance can be placed on decisions in Asst. assessment order. Reliance can be placed on decisions in Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 992], PCIT v. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 992], PCIT v. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 992], PCIT v. Anuj Bansal [ITA 368/2023]. The Co Anuj Bansal [ITA 368/2023]. The Co-ordinate Bench of the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while examining the similar issue in the case of SEH while examining the similar issue in the case of SEH while examining the similar issue in the case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2503/Del/2017 and Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2503/Del/2017 and Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2503/Del/2017 and connected matters for Assessment Year 2013 connected matters for Assessment Year 2013-14 vide order dated 14 vide order dated 23/07/2024, considered all the judicial pronouncements on the 23/07/2024, considered all the judicial pronouncements on the 23/07/2024, considered all the judicial pronouncements on the issue and has held as under: as under: - “8. We find as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search “8. We find as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search “8. We find as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions rea the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon ched thereon from the ld. JCIT, in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a from the ld. JCIT, in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a from the ld. JCIT, in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a mandatory requirement of law. The said approval granting mandatory requirement of law. The said approval granting mandatory requirement of law. The said approval granting proceedings by the ld. JCIT is a quasi judicial proceeding proceedings by the ld. JCIT is a quasi judicial proceeding proceedings by the ld. JCIT is a quasi judicial proceeding requiring application of mind by the ld. JCIT judiciously. In requiring application of mind by the ld. JCIT judiciously. In order order to ensure smooth implementation of the aforesaid provisions, in to ensure smooth implementation of the aforesaid provisions, in to ensure smooth implementation of the aforesaid provisions, in consonance with the true spirit of the scheme of the Act, it is the consonance with the true spirit of the scheme of the Act, it is the consonance with the true spirit of the scheme of the Act, it is the bounden duty of the Ld. AO to seek to place the draft assessment bounden duty of the Ld. AO to seek to place the draft assessment bounden duty of the Ld. AO to seek to place the draft assessment order together with copies of the seized documents b order together with copies of the seized documents before the ld. efore the ld. JCIT well in time much before the due date of completion of JCIT well in time much before the due date of completion of JCIT well in time much before the due date of completion of search assessment. The ld. JCIT is supposed to examine the seized search assessment. The ld. JCIT is supposed to examine the seized search assessment. The ld. JCIT is supposed to examine the seized documents, questionnaires raised by the Ld. AO on the assessee documents, questionnaires raised by the Ld. AO on the assessee documents, questionnaires raised by the Ld. AO on the assessee seeking explanation of contents in the seized documen seeking explanation of contents in the seized documents, replies ts, replies filed by the assessee in response to the questionnaires issued by filed by the assessee in response to the questionnaires issued by filed by the assessee in response to the questionnaires issued by the Ld. AO and the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO vis the Ld. AO and the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO vis- à-vis the vis the said seized documents after considering the reply of the assessee. said seized documents after considering the reply of the assessee. said seized documents after considering the reply of the assessee. All these functions, as stated earlier, are t All these functions, as stated earlier, are to be performed by the o be performed by the ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind. Even ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind. Even ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind. Even though as vehemently argued by the Ld. CIT though as vehemently argued by the Ld. CIT-DR, the ld. JCIT is DR, the ld. JCIT is involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing, Investigation Wing, still, the ld. JCIT, while granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act still, the ld. JCIT, while granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act still, the ld. JCIT, while granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act has to independently apply his mind dehors the conclusions drawn has to independently apply his mind dehors the conclusions drawn has to independently apply his mind dehors the conclusions drawn either by the Investigation Wing in the appraisal report or by the either by the Investigation Wing in the appraisal report or by the either by the Investigation Wing in the appraisal report or by the Ld. AO in the draft assessment ord Ld. AO in the draft assessment order. The copy of the appraisal er. The copy of the appraisal report submitted by the Investigation Wing to the Ld. AO and ld. report submitted by the Investigation Wing to the Ld. AO and ld. report submitted by the Investigation Wing to the Ld. AO and ld.

The contention on behalf of department that Section 292BC The contention on behalf of department that Section 292BC The contention on behalf of department that Section 292BC of the Act introduced by way of amendment by Fina of the Act introduced by way of amendment by Finance Act, 2026 nce Act, 2026 w.e.f from 1.04.2021 would be applicable in the case of present w.e.f from 1.04.2021 would be applicable in the case of present w.e.f from 1.04.2021 would be applicable in the case of present assessee also have not substance as we find that legislature has assessee also have not substance as we find that legislature has assessee also have not substance as we find that legislature has made the amendment applicable retrospectively w.e.f 01.04.2021 made the amendment applicable retrospectively w.e.f 01.04.2021 made the amendment applicable retrospectively w.e.f 01.04.2021 in regard to approvals granted after 01.04.2021. T in regard to approvals granted after 01.04.2021. Thus, by no hus, by no stretch of imagination we can accept the contention that because stretch of imagination we can accept the contention that because stretch of imagination we can accept the contention that because the matter is being heard subsequent to the amendment it becomes the matter is being heard subsequent to the amendment it becomes the matter is being heard subsequent to the amendment it becomes applicable to also in cases where approval was granted prior to applicable to also in cases where approval was granted prior to applicable to also in cases where approval was granted prior to 01.04.2021. 8. We also bring on record the fact th We also bring on record the fact that subsequent to the at subsequent to the hearing a request was made on behalf of the department by ld. hearing a request was made on behalf of the department by ld. hearing a request was made on behalf of the department by ld. CIT, DR Shri Mahesh Kumar by letter dated 16.04.2026 that CIT, DR Shri Mahesh Kumar by letter dated 16.04.2026 that CIT, DR Shri Mahesh Kumar by letter dated 16.04.2026 that because a reference u/s 255 of the Act has been made to Hon’ble because a reference u/s 255 of the Act has been made to Hon’ble because a reference u/s 255 of the Act has been made to Hon’ble president on 16.04.2026 for constitution of special president on 16.04.2026 for constitution of special bench in the bench in the several cases, including the present, in regard to issue of approval several cases, including the present, in regard to issue of approval several cases, including the present, in regard to issue of approval u/s 153D of the Act, the case be released. We do not appreciate u/s 153D of the Act, the case be released. We do not appreciate u/s 153D of the Act, the case be released. We do not appreciate that after a matter has been kept heard and order reserved that after a matter has been kept heard and order reserved that after a matter has been kept heard and order reserved department can take a plea to release the matter a department can take a plea to release the matter as subsequently, s subsequently, reference has been made by the department for Constitution of reference has been made by the department for Constitution of reference has been made by the department for Constitution of Special Bench. We have found issue to be covered by decision of Special Bench. We have found issue to be covered by decision of Special Bench. We have found issue to be covered by decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, thus too, we find no reason to Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, thus too, we find no reason to Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, thus too, we find no reason to release the matter. Thus, we allow the correspo release the matter. Thus, we allow the corresponding ground nding ground raised and allow the appeals of the assessee. The impugned raised and allow the appeals of the assessee. The impugned raised and allow the appeals of the assessee. The impugned assessment arising out of the vitiated approval u/s 153D of the Act assessment arising out of the vitiated approval u/s 153D of the Act assessment arising out of the vitiated approval u/s 153D of the Act stand quashed….” 9. Thus, we have noted that as the facts of the case at hand are Thus, we have noted that as the facts of the case at hand are Thus, we have noted that as the facts of the case at hand are