ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business / profession and “income from other sources”. She filed her return of income on 15.10.2016 disclosing income of Rs.15,61,200/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search and survey action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the Yuvraj Dhamale group of cases on 26.09.2017. During the search action, certain incriminating documents were found and seized from the various premises covered under such search action. According to the details as per page No.11 of Bundle No.55 seized from the premises of Shri Pravin Gawali, it was gathered that the assessee had booked the flat No.1004, ‘B’ Building in the project Rajgruhi Residency. The total cost of the said flat as per the seized documents was found to be Rs.1,15,94,200/-. From the analysis of excel sheet at page 11 it was seen that the assessee has paid Rs.40,01,000/- till June, 2017. As per the above seized paper the assessee had made a total cash payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and cheque payment of Rs.30,01,000/- for purchase of the said flat. The above fact of taking on-money in cash from the assessee was also admitted by Shri Yuvraj Dhamale in his statement. Accordingly, the Dy.CIT, Central Circle 2(3), Pune who was having possession of the seized material in capacity of the Assessing Officer of Shri Yuvraj Dhamale and M/s. Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. recorded the satisfaction that the information contained on page No.11 of the Bundle No.55 seized from the residential premises of Shri Pravin Gawali was related to the assessee. Subsequently, the case was centralized in the Central Circle 2(3), Pune. Accordingly, the DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Pune recorded the satisfaction dated 22.04.2021 as per the provisions of section 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee. A notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 on 30.04.2021 which was duly served through ITBA system. The assessee in response to the same did not file the return of income.

The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings issued questionnaires along with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 03.11.2021 and 25.11.2021. A summon u/s 131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 06.12.2021 for appearance on 10.12.2021. On the basis of submissions received, a show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2021. The assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer filed the requisite details from time to time.

The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of search action at the residential premises of Shri Pravin Gawali, director of M/s. Wellbuild Merchant Pvt. Ltd., certain loose papers were found and seized as serial Nos.10 to 14 of the Bundle No.55 which are excel sheets containing the details such as name of the customers, total consideration, receipt in cheque / cash, etc. The statement of Shri Pravin Gawali was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 26.09.2017 in reply to which he had stated that though the seized papers / documents were found from his possession but the same belong to Shri Yuvraj Dhamale and he only will be able to explain the same. During the course of search action at the office premises of M/s. Wellbuild Merchant Pvt. Ltd., statement of Shri Yuvraj Dhamale (key person of Dhamale Group) was recorded on oath on 26.09.2017. In the said statement he had accepted that the excel sheets seized vide page Nos.10 to 14 of Bundle No.55 from the residential premises of Shri Pravin Gawali belongs to him and the entries mentioned therein were maintained by his accountant Shri Umakant Kuwar as per his directions. He further explained that the entries made in these pages contain the names of customers, flat number, area, type, cost of flat, infra charges + MSEB, total cost of flat, amount received in cheque, amount received in cash, total received etc. He also stated that these sheets contain the details of customers who had booked the flats in tower A & B of Rajgruhi Residency, a project developed by M/s. Wellbuild Merchant Pvt. Ltd. at Kondhwa.

The Assessing Officer noted from the seized excel sheets that page No.10 of the Bundle No.55 contain the name of the assessee along with noting of the following transaction details:

Similarly, he noted that the noting of on-money was also found from the residential premises of Shri Umakant Kuwar. The scanned copies of the said pages were reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. After analysis of the various documents seized from the premises of key person of Dhamale Group, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had made payment to the builder for purchase of flat No.B-1004, the year-wise details of which are as under:

He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the source of such payments by producing the relevant details. However, in absence of any satisfactory reply given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, made addition of Rs.25 lakh being the unexplained investment made in cash for assessment year 2016-17. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal in nature and all the material facts are already available on record and no new facts are required to be investigated, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and in the case of Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (supra), the additional grounds raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Adhiprasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021) 277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided under section 245F.

Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Omaxe Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 254 CTR 370 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that once application is admitted by settlement commission, till final order, exclusive jurisdiction in relation to assessee's case would be with it and all matters which can be examined by Assessing Officer can be examined by it.

Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tahiliani Design (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2021) 432 ITR 134 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee filed application under section 245C to Settlement Commission and brought only case pursuant to notice under section 153A issued to it and did not expressly refer to notice and penalty proceedings for violation of section 269ST pending against it Since penalty proceedings were also initiated in context of search, seizure and survey carried out qua assessee pursuant whereto notices under section 153A were issued, Settlement Commission would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matter relating to violation of section 269ST also.

Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gupta Perfumers (P.) Ltd. vs. ITSC (2012) 348 ITR 86 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where in a settlement application certain seized papers were referred to which belonged to third persons, such seized papers can be used and utilized against such third persons.

He also relied on the following decisions: i) Income-tax Settlement Commission vs. Agson Global (P.) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 606 (SC) ii) Agson Global (P.) Ltd. vs Income-tax Settlement Commission (2016) 380 ITR 342 (Del)

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his another plank of argument referred to the satisfaction note by the DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Pune on 11.11.2020, copy of which is placed at pages 14 to 18 of the paper book and submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed a consolidated satisfaction note for various assessment years.

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in 159 taxmann.com 179 (Kar.), he submitted that the satisfaction u/s 153C ought to be on a year-to-year basis and absence of year-by-year satisfaction vitiates the proceedings.

Referring to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale vs. PCIT vide for assessment year 2017-18, order dated 30.12.2024, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is void being not in accordance with law on account of combined satisfaction note for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. He submitted that the Revenue challenged the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his yet another plank of legal argument as per original ground of appeal No.3 and additional ground of appeal No.8 submitted that the approval has been granted by the Addl.CIT in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. He submitted that in the instant case, various issues were involved i.e. exclusive jurisdiction with the Settlement Commission on 11.11.2020, multiple years under single satisfaction notes, circular loop error, etc. Further, cheque payment has been considered as on-money cash payment and the additions made for the same amount of Rs.40 lakh. Further, there is duplicate / double addition of Rs.10 lakh. He submitted that in absence of corroborative material and on the basis of additional search material over and above the transferred material was resorted to for making additions. Despite all these discrepancies, the approval was granted which shows that it was a mechanical approval without due application of mind.

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 467 ITR 186 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where approval under section 153D for relevant assessment year was granted by Addl. Commissioner for 43 cases on a single day without perusing draft assessment orders at all and without an independent application of mind, impugned assessment order was rightly declared to be illegal by Tribunal.

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 466 ITR 251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law.

He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue which has been reported in (2024) 466 ITR 254 (SC).

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Ori), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessment orders passed in case of assessee were totally silent about Assessing Officer having written to Additional Commissioner seeking his approval or of Additional Commissioner having granted such approval, Tribunal was correct in holding that in present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by Additional Commissioner resulting in vitiating assessment orders.

He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court which has been reported in (2024) 299 Taxman 448 (SC).

Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) 112 ITR (T) 224 (Pune-Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that approval under Section 153D is a mandatory and not procedural requirement and approving authority needs to carefully review evidence and documents before granting approval, as mechanical approval without application of mind would vitiate assessment orders.

So far as the additional ground No.7 is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the first satisfaction note was recorded on 11.11.2020, 127 order was passed on 08.03.2021 and second satisfaction note was recorded on 21.04.2021. He submitted that as per the scheme of 153C, first the Assessing Officer of the searched person is required to transfer the material to the second Assessing Officer who holds the jurisdiction on “any other person”. He submitted that in the instant case the DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Pune never transferred the alleged search material to the Assessing Officer who was holding the jurisdiction over the assessee herein on 11.11.2020. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer kept waiting for getting the 127 order and getting the assigned jurisdiction. After getting the effect of the 127 order, the same Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Pune has recorded second satisfaction on 21.04.2021. He submitted that such a situation is contrary to the express safeguards provided u/s 153C of the Act.

He submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer in waiting for transfer of jurisdiction to his office instead of transferring the alleged incriminating material was incorrect.

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Carol Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. ACIT vide W.P. (C) 3927/2025 CM Appl. No.18231/2025, order dated 23.04.2025 copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the mechanism u/s 153C does not envisage any hiatus i.e. time interval or gap in transferring of incriminating material in favour of the Assessing Officer of the other person. He submitted that in the present case such hiatus indeed took place which is contrary to the mechanism u/s 153C. He drew the attention of the Bench to the said decision where it has been held as under: “10. The main body of Section 153C(1) of the Act and the proviso do not contemplate a hiatus between the handing over of the documents by the AO having jurisdiction over such person and receipt of the same by the AO having jurisdiction over person other than the searched person. In terms of Section 153B(1) of the Act read with third proviso to said Section, in case of the search executed during the financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2019, the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.”

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour of the "Central Circle" when the search / survey is initiated. As per clarification u/s 153C, the search in case of "any other person" is initiated on such a date when the incriminating material is shifted by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assessing Officer holding jurisdiction on "any other person". Only when the search is so initiated, the mechanism of assigned jurisdiction u/s 127 can trigger. However, in the instant case, events have reached in a circular loop leading to a fallacy.

Referring to the 127 order dated 08.03.2021, he submitted that the jurisdiction was transferred to Central Circle 2(3), Pune for a coordinated investigation with Dhamale Group cases. The said 127 order also reveals that the proposal for the said transfer of jurisdiction was received only on 05.02.2021. However, as per facts, the Dhamale group cases were already concluded vide 245D(4) order dated 07.01.2021. Therefore, the stated reason of coordinated investigation was not existing at all on 08.03.2021. He accordingly submitted that on this issue also, there is no jurisdiction with the Assessing Officer to pass the order and therefore, such order being bad in law should be quashed.

So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 18 of the assessment order submitted that the Assessing Officer has reproduced a chart containing certain amounts paid by the assessee in shape of cash. However, a perusal of the said chart would show that two entries found in the seized material are in fact paid by cheque. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following details and submitted that the cheque payments were part and parcel of the registered agreement between M/s. Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee:

Further, the assessee has taken housing loan from M/s. PNB amounting to Rs.78 lakhs for flat No.B-1004. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has made addition of cheque payment treating the same as on-money cash payment. He submitted that this being a glaring mistake, the assessee communicated the same to the CIT(A). However, he did not consider the same.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the second entry in the table containing Rs.15 lakh which is captured from page 9 of Bundle No.22 seized from the residence of Mr. Gawali would show that the two top entries of Rs.5 lakh each are very same / duplicate entries on page 18 of Bundle No.15 seized from the residence of Mr. Gawali. Thus, there is double addition of Rs.10 lakh. Further, no opportunity of cross examination was given to the assessee which also vitiates the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following table and submitted that if the addition made by the Assessing Officer is sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, then the effective rate per square feet varies from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,500/- which is not possible at the relevant time and not even today.

He submitted that the wide variation itself shows that there is no question of any on-money payment and amounts are as per the registered documents.

He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) has to be deleted and the assessment order has to be quashed.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that once Dhamale group of entities have approached the Settlement Commission which admitted the application for which the jurisdiction does not lie with the Assessing Officer is concerned, he submitted that the assessee has not gone before the Settlement Commission and it was only Yuvraj Dhamale group of cases which had approached the Settlement Commission. The Assessing Officer of the entities who have approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission and the Assessing Officer of the entities referred to in the present appeal who have approached the ITAT are the same.

So far as the various decisions relied on by Ld. Counsel for the assessee are concerned, the Ld. DR submitted that the issue u/s 245F must be considered keeping in mind the distinction between assessment and settlement. He submitted that these are distinct in nature. Merely because Dhamale group had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of their cases, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer of Dhamale group has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153C of the Act on the basis of certain seized material belonging to a party other than the searched person. He submitted that Dhamale group had approached the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission is required to pass the order on the basis of disclosure made by Dhamale group. They have no jurisdiction to decide a case other than the settlement application filed by Dhamale group for settlement of their cases. He submitted that the powers of the Settlement Commission are brought within the context of reaching a settlement in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, merely because Dhamale group of cases had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of their cases, there is no complete cessation of the Assessing Officer’s powers upon the filing of an application to issue notice u/s 153C after following due procedure.

So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer has passed a consolidated satisfaction note for which the assessments have to be quashed is concerned, he submitted that practicality and administrative burden has to be kept in mind. He submitted that issuing separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year especially when dealing with a single search operation that reveals material relevant to multiple years creates an undue administrative burden on the tax authorities. It is more efficient and practical to consolidate the satisfaction regarding the relevance of seized material across all affected assessment years if the underlying search is common. Further, the spirit of section 153C is to assessee income that has escaped assessment based on seized material. If the material clearly relates to multiple years, focusing excessively on the form of the satisfaction note rather than the substance of the satisfaction can hinder the legitimate collection of taxes. Further, there is no explicit prohibition in the statute for such common satisfaction note.

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian National Congress vs. DCIT (2024) 463 ITR 431 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that satisfaction note merely forms foundation for initiation of action which would enable to evaluate whether an opinion has been validly formed and as long as it rests on incriminating material, which pertains to assessment years in question, same would qualify requirement of section 153C.

As regards the issue of reliance on the decision favourable to the assessee when two conflicting decisions on the same issue are available is concerned, he submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd., reported in 206 ITR 727 (Bom) has held that it is satisfaction of the Court interpreting the law, in that the language of the taxing provision is ambiguous or reasonably capable of more meanings than one which is material. If the court does not think so, the fact that two different opinions have been expressed by the parties or accepted by some Tribunal or High Court by itself will not be sufficient to attract the principle of beneficiary interpretation.

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. The Tahsildar & Ors. etc. vide Civil Appeal Nos.4526-4527 of 2024, judgment dated 27.02.2025, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that if two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both and follow the decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand. He accordingly submitted that on the issue of combined satisfaction also, assessments cannot be quashed.

So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the approval u/s 153D has been given in a mechanical manner is concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer interacts with the Joint Commissioner / Addl. Commissioner on a regular basis and finally when the draft orders are forwarded to the Addl. Commissioner / Joint Commissioner, he gives his approval. The approval is not given on the last day and it is a continuous process of communication between the Assessing Officer and the Range Head. Therefore, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee does not have much weight and has to be rejected.

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Settlement Commission vs. Agson Global (P.) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 606 (SC), the Ld. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed against order of High Court where it was held that Settlement Commission does not have power to direct a special audit under section 142(2A) in course of settlement proceedings under Chapter XIX-A.

Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Super Malls (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 281 (SC), the Ld. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that in terms of section 153C, when Assessing Officer of searched person and third person is same, it is sufficient by Assessing Officer to record in satisfaction note that documents seized from searched person belonged to other person and, there is no requirement of transmitting documents so seized from searched person.

So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had given a concurrent finding regarding the payment of such on-money by the assessee which is based on the seized papers found from the residence of the key personnel of Dhamale group. Further, the key persons of Dhamale group in their statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act have also unequivocally accepted the receipt of such on-money. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of both sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case, on the basis of information obtained that certain documents / loose papers pertaining to or information contained in papers / documents related to the assessee Smt. Chitra Narendra Parmar were found during the course of search on 26.09.2017, issued notice u/s 153C of the Act on the basis of satisfaction note dated 11.11.2020 and 21.04.2021. We find the Assessing Officer completed the assessment making addition of Rs.25 lakh as on-money paid for purchase of flat No.B-1004 for assessment year 2016-17 and Rs.20 lakh for assessment year 2017-18. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that 153C proceedings are not valid on account of (a) combined satisfaction note issued for different assessment years; (b) mechanical approval u/s 153D; (c) the jurisdiction does not lie with the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 153C in view of the admission of the settlement application filed by Dhamale group of cases by the Settlement Commission and (d) non handing over of the seized material by the Assessing Officer of the searched party, who was waiting for jurisdiction to be transferred to him in the case of the assessee. Even on merit also, his submission is that the addition is not required since the Assessing Officer has held the cheque payments as on-money paid in cash and there are additions of the same amount which amounts to double addition.

A perusal of the first satisfaction note issued by the Assessing Officer dated 11.11.2020, copy of which is placed at pages 62 to 65 of the paper book shows that the Assessing Officer at para 4 has recorded as under: “Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer of the person referred to in section 153A that the seized material referred to in Sr. No.5 pertains to the person referred to in Serial No.4. 1. A search and seizure u/s 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26/09/2017 and subsequent dates in the case of Yuvraj Dhamale Group, engaged in real estate business. 2. The search and seizure action u/s 132 of act was also conducted in case of Shri Yuvraj Sitaram Dhamale and M/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt Ltd at residential premise of Shri Pravin Gawali at 35/10, Shivajirao Kadam nagar, Ambegaon pathar, near Raje chowk, Pune. During the search proceedings, several incriminating materials and documents were seized. 3.A print out of excel sheet containing recording of on money receipts from customer of project Rajgruhi Residency project developed by M/s Wellbuild merchants pvt ltd has been seized as per Bundle no 55. As per entry on page no 11 of said sheet, Smt Chitra Narendra Parmar has booked the flat no 1004 (B building) in the project for which she has made cash payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. In view of above discussion, I am satisfied that entries on page no 11 of Bundle no 55 relates to person as mentioned in Sr no 4 above i.e. Smt. Chitra Narendra Parmar. Hence, in view of the provisions of section 153C of the I. T. Act, 1961, it is necessary to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of Act for A Ys 2012-13 to 2018-19 in case of such other person namely Smt Chitra Narendra Parmar. Sd/- (Swapnil Sharadrao Patil) Date: 11/11/2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Place : Pune Central Circle 2(3), Pune”

Similarly, the second satisfaction dated 21.04.2021 reads as under:

Thus, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has passed a combined satisfaction note for various assessment years. We find the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) has held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s 153C of the IT Act, 1961 for each assessment year and hence, a consolidated satisfaction note recorded for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “53. Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant/ Revenue.”

We find when the Revenue challenged the above order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.21526 of 2024 vide order dated 20th August, 2024 dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue.

We find following the above decision, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale vs. PCIT vide for assessment year 2017-18, order dated 30.12.2024 has quashed the assessment proceedings by observing as under: “8.7. Since in the instant case a consolidated satisfaction note has been prepared for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019, therefore, the consolidation satisfaction note being not in accordance with law, therefore, the entire assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. We hold accordingly and quash the assessment.”

So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian National Congress vs. DCIT (supra) relied on by Ld. DR is concerned, we find no doubt there is a favourable decision in favour of the Revenue on the issue of combined satisfaction. However, it has been held in various decisions that when there are two views possible on an issue and there is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on that issue, then the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Even the Ld. DR in his written submissions has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 236 (SC) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 240 has observed as under: “If a provision of a taxing statute can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, that interpretation which is favourable to the assessee, has got to be accepted. This is a well-accepted view of law.”

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. The Tahsildar & Ors. (supra) has held that if two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand. Following the above principle and considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra), therefore, we follow the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) and hold that the satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s 153C for each assessment year and a consolidated satisfaction note recorded for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. Since in the instant case a consolidated satisfaction note has been prepared for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19, therefore, such consolidated satisfaction note being not in accordance with law, the entire assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.

Even otherwise also, we find that the approval u/s 153D has been given in a mechanical manner. A perusal of the incriminating material referred to in the satisfaction note of the DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Pune relates to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19. However, the satisfaction is reached either by referring the covered period as different years or assessment year 2012-13 to assessment year 2018-19. Had the JCIT / Addl.CIT applied his mind to the satisfaction note he would have confined himself to two assessment years instead of assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. Further, it is also an admitted fact that Dhamale group had approached the Settlement Commission and whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153C by recording satisfaction when the jurisdiction was ceased with the Assessing Officer has not been considered by the JCIT. A perusal of the order passed u/s 127 of the Act shows that the jurisdiction was transferred to Central Circle 2(3), Pune for a coordinated investigation with Dhamale group of cases. It is also an admitted fact that the cases of Dhamale group were concluded by the Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) of the Act vide order dated 07.01.2021. Therefore, what type of coordinated investigation was conducted by the Assessing Officer is not understood. It is also an admitted fact that certain cheque payments have been considered as on-money cash payments for which the additions have been made. This shows that the JCIT / Addl.CIT in a mechanical manner has given the approval u/s 153D of the Act. It has been held in various decisions that the approval given u/s 153D in a mechanical manner vitiates the assessment proceedings for which the assessments have been held to be not in accordance with law and have been quashed.

We find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) has held as under: “9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 10. Before embarking upon the analysis of the factual scenario of the instant appeal, we deem it apposite to examine the underlying intent of the relevant provision of the Act i.e., Section 153D, which is culled out as under:- "153-D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases or requisition.-- No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of Section 153-A] or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153- B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for "each assessment year" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase- "each assessment year" used in the language of Section 153D of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as under:- "13. It was held therein that if an approval has been granted by the Approving Authority in a mechanical manner without application of mind then the very purpose of obtaining approval under Section 153D of the Act and mandate of the enactment by the legislature will be defeated. For granting approval under Section 153D of the Act, the Approving Authority shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record for "each assessment year" in respect of "each assessee" separately. The words 'each assessment year' used in Section 153D and 153A have been considered to hold that effective and proper meaning has to be given so that underlying legislative intent as per scheme of assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was held that the "approval" as contemplated under 153D of the Act, requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing the assessment. The approval, thus, cannot be a mere formality and, in any case, cannot be a mechanical exercise of power. *** 19. The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A." [Emphasis supplied] 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 that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord approval mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible 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 granting approval has to apply its mind for "each assessment year" for "each assessee" separately.

Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 992] to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:-

A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind.

Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were 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 the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above.

Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.”

We find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal (supra) has held as under: “5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 6. The appellant/revenue via this appeal seeks to assail the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal"] 7. The Tribunal has via the impugned order set aside the additions made qua the income of the respondent / assessee inter alia, on the ground that there was no application of mind by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [In short, "ACIT"] in granting approval under Section 153D of Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short, The Act'] 8. To be noted, an assessment order was framed qua the respondent/assessee under Section 153A, read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 8.1 This order was carried in appeal by the respondent/assessee, right up till the Tribunal.

Insofar as the Assessing Officer (AO) was concerned, he made certain additions against the returned income. 9.1 The respondent had declared an income amounting to Rs.87,20,580/-. However, while making the additions, strangely, the AO noted that the returned income was Rs. 11,00,460/- 10. There were two additions made by the AO. The first addition was made qua cash deposited in the bank, amounting to Rs.15,04,35,000. The second addition was made with regard to cash introduced via an entry operator i.e. one Mr Vipin Garg. The amount added qua this aspect was pegged at Rs.1,54,07,100/-.

Despite these additions, which would have taken the assessed income well beyond what was crystalised by the AO i.e. Rs.1,65,07,560/-, the ACTT failed to notice the error.

This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The Tribunal, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of mind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said error. 12.1 More particularly, the Tribunal notes that all that was looked at by the ACIT, was the draft assessment order.

We find when the Revenue challenged the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same as reported in 466 ITR 254 (SC). The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on this issue also supports his case to the proposition that when the approval u/s 153D has been given in a mechanical manner by the Addl. CIT / JCIT, such approval is not in accordance with law for which the assessments have been quashed. Since in the instant case also it is held that such approval u/s 153D has been given in a mechanical manner, therefore, such approval not being in accordance with law, the assessment orders are liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.

Since the assessee succeeds on these two legal grounds, therefore, other legal grounds as well as the addition on merit become academic in nature, therefore, the same are not being adjudicated.

We find the grounds raised by the assessee in are identical to the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1262/PUN/2024. We have already adjudicated the legal grounds on the issue of combined satisfaction and mechanical approval u/s 153D and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Following similar reasonings, we allow the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1269/PUN/2024.

Identical grounds have been raised in other appeals by the different assessees for different assessment years where a combined satisfaction note has been issued for different assessment years. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the notice issued u/s 153C by recording a combined satisfaction for different assessment years vitiates the entire proceedings for which the assessments have been quashed, following the similar reasonings, we quash the assessments of other different assessees. Further, we have also held that the approval given by the Addl. CIT / JCIT u/s 153D was in a mechanical manner for which in the preceding paragraphs we have already held that such approval is not in accordance with law for which the assessments have been quashed. Since the facts in case of all the other appeals are identical to the facts of the case already decided by us in the preceding paragraphs, therefore, following similar reasonings, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed.