Loading judgment…

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA | BharatTax

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 670/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 March 2025AY 2016-171 pages

AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee, Resonance Eduventures Ltd., filed four appeals against orders passed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19. The appeals were filed against assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A/153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation.

Held

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without valid prior approval as required under Section 153D of the Act, as the approval was granted mechanically and without due application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

Key Issues

Whether the assessment orders are liable to be quashed on the ground of invalid prior approval under Section 153D of the Act due to mechanical application of mind by the approving authority?

Sections Cited

153D, 143(3), 153A, 153B, 132, 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH B, JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Hearing: 21/01/2025Pronounced: 10/03/2025

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing: 21/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These four appeals have been filed by the assessee against four separate orders of ld. CIT (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated all 28.03.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2018-19 respectively. The grounds raised by the assesseein all these appeals are common except with variance in figures, therefore, for the sake of convenience. to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota.

2. In the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- ITA NO. 672/JP/2024 AY 2018-19 :

1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 27.12.2019 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.

2. The ld. CIT (A) further seriously erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not following the law laid down by the Apex Court holding that no addition is legally permissible in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of an unabated/completed assessment and hence, in this case, in absence of any incriminating material found, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted in full.

3. Rs. 25,07,454/-: The ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition/deduction made by the ld. AO of Rs. 25,07,454/- on account of alleged expenditure. The addition so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same may kindly be deleted in full. The following is the chart of these expenditures : S.No. Heads of Expenses/Deductions Expense/Deduction sustained by CIT (A) 3.1 Travelling Expenses Rs. 3,00,000/- 3.2 Staff Welfare Rs. 3,00,000/- 3.3 Office Expenses Rs.11,02,093/- 3.4 Students Welfare Expenses Rs. 50,000/- 3.5 BD Expenses Rs. 5,00,000/- 3.6 Function Expenses Rs. 50,000/- 3.7. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 2,05,361/- Total Benefit Rs. 25,07,454/-

4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Resonance Eduventure Limited is a company derives income from business of imparting coaching to students aspiring for admission through competitive examinations during the year under consideration. A search & seizure operation under section132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on07.09.2017 at the various premises of “Resonance Group, Kota” to which the appellant belongs. Cash, Jewellery and other documents were found and seized from some persons’ residence and business to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. premises. The case of the appellant was also covered under search proceeding. Consequent to search action, the case of the appellant was centralized to Central Circle-Kota. The appellant company filed its return of income under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 29.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 70,35,90,940/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued by theAO on 06.02.2019 which was duly served. Further, notice under sub section (1) of Section 142 of the IT Act was issued by the AO on 27.05.2019 along with questionnaire/Annexure-A requiring certain details/information, which was served upon the appellant. The case of the appellant was earlier selected by CASS for scrutiny assessment. The reasons of selection in CASS have alsobeen verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The CASS scrutiny proceeding was abated vide order issued by the AO on 20.11.2019. Assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the AO assessing the total income at Rs. 71,10,17,370/- vide order dated 27.12.2019, making additions on various grounds of Rs.74,26,393/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by reducing the addition upto Rs. 49,18,939/- (on account of Office Expenses, Student Welfare Expenses and Function Expenses) stating that the same are on a higher side and restricted the addition to Rs. 25,07,454/-. to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

5.

We first take up Additional Ground No. 6 as mentioned herein above for adjudication. In regard to this Additional Ground, the relevant facts are that the impugned assessment order has been passed on dated 27.12.2019 without mentioning the DIN, ignoring the specific requirement made by binding Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 5.1 In this regard the ld. AR for the assessee submitted his written submission as under : “1.1. It is submitted that in order to prevent instances where certain notices, orders, summons, letters and other correspondences which have been issued manually do not have proper audit trail of their communication despite various e-governance initiatives and computerization and to maintain proper audit trail of all the communications, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT” in short) vide its Binding Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 (DC-1-2) has made it obligatory on the part of the authorities below to essentially mention of Document Identification Number (“DIN” for short) and has directed that no communication shall be issued by any Income-Tax Authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval, etc. to the Assessee or any other person, on or after the 01.10.2019 unless a computer generated DIN has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication. Para 3 of the said Circular provides for certain exceptional circumstances when the communication can be issued manually but must mention such fact and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax for issue of said manual communication in the prescribed format, failing which, para 4 of the said circular states that such communication shall be treated as ‘non-est’ / 'invalid' and shall be deemed to have never been issued. 1.2 Moreover, the Directorate of Income-tax (System) vide Instructions dated 25.10.2019lays down the procedure for generation of DIN for documents prepared outside ITBA system and uploaded manually, wherein it is stated that when a document is prepared outside ITBA system and uploaded manually, a DIN is required to be to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. generated prior to uploading the document in ITBA. The instructions make it imperative that the DIN so generated has to be quoted in the physical copy. The reasoning behind the said instruction is that the generation of DIN is a condition precedent for making an assessment manually or otherwise on the ITBA and therefore the order should have DIN bearing on its face. The assessment can be said to be 'made' only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. If without first generating the DIN and before it is quoted on the order, the order is signed, the order is non-est.

2.

Supporting case laws - Order invalid where no DIN is mentioned: 2.1 Recently the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (EXEMPTION) vs. Tata Medical Centre Trust (2023) 334 CTR (Cal) 942 (DC 3-4), wherein the issue under consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed under s. 263 of the said Act on the ground of not mentioning any DIN. The Hon’ble court held as under: “6. The Revenue filed miscellaneous application seeking for rectification of the said order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factual exercise and in fact, raised a specific query to the Revenue to point out how a DIN intimation letter along with the manual order as explained by the CIT(Exemption) in his reply fulfils the categorical requirement mandated by the CBDT circular, more particularly, in para 2 of the said circular, that the body of the communication, the order under s. 263 of the Act, must contain the fact and that the communication issued referred to the DIN without justifying as to how the non- compliance of the CBDT Circular dt. 14th Aug., 2019, which was noted by the Tribunal when it passed the main order. The Tribunal notes that this specific query was unable to be answered by the Revenue and therefore the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed under s. 263 does not satisfy the requirement mandated by the CBDT circular. “7. Thus, we find no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 2.2 Kindly refer Hexaware Technologies Limited vs ACIT & Ors. (WP no.1778/2023) (DC 5-47), wherein the notice u/s 148 was issued without DIN. The Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 04.05.2024 held as under: “31 As regards issue no.3, in the notice dated 27th August 2022 impugned in the petition, admittedly there is no DIN mentioned. It is petitioner’s case that the notice is invalid and bad in law in view of the Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019 issued by CBDT. A separate intimation letter also dated 27th August 2022 was issued and the said letter reads as under:

3. Supporting Case Laws - CBDT Instructions are binding: 3.1 The CBDT circular and instructions have been held to be binding on the Income-Tax Authorities for which a useful reference can be made to the cases of CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. (1997) 94 Taxman 271/228 ITR 463 (SC), wherein, it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the Court or even the Assessee. In the case of UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 104 Taxman 547/237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. be properly categorized as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities." 3.2 Strong reliance is also placed in the decision of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT & Ors. (1996) 133 CTR (Raj) 97: (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj). 3.3 Also,the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Teneja vs. ITO (2022) 324 CTR (Raj) 577 : (2022) 210 DTR (Raj) 105 : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj)held that (a) taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation. Nor while interpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place. (b) There is nothing unjust in the tax payer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature’s failure to express itself clearly. (c) It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. (d) In the matter of interpretation of charging section of a taxation statute, strict Rule of interpretation is mandatory and if there are two views possible in the matter of interpretation of a charging section, the one favorable to the assessee need to be applied.

There is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Addl. CIT. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. The mere repeating of the words of the statute, or mere "rubber stamping" of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like ‘see’ or ‘approved’ will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure of CBDT becomes important. Although, it was in the context of s. 158BG, it would equally apply to s. 153D. It is an admitted position that the assessment orders are totally silent about the AO having written to the Addl. CIT seeking his approval or of the Addl. CIT having granted such approval. Interestingly, the assessment orders were passed on 30th Dec., 2010 without mentioning the above fact. These two orders were therefore not in compliance with the requirement spelt out in para 9 of the Manual of Official Procedure. to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of s. 153D and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the Tribunal that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Addl. CIT resulting in vitiating the assessment orders themselves The initial assessment order as also the impugned assessment order without jurisdiction is void-ab-initio being a nullity and hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”.

10.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Let us now examine whether in the aforesaid background of the scheme of the Act, whether the approval in terms of section 153D of the Act has been granted by the ld. Addl. CIT in a judicious way after due application of mind or not, in the instant case. Before us, the ld. A/R for the assessee has contended that the impugned assessment order is nullity, being without jurisdiction, in as-much-as no prior approval, as mandated by section 153D of the Act, was obtained. Furthermore, it to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. has even been contended that if the said approval was obtained, same was accorded mechanically without application of mind. Accordingly, Ld. A/R for the appellant has urged that the impugned assessment order deserves to be set aside. The ld. A/R further contended that the assessments in these cases were completed u/s 153A of the Act by Asst. CIT, Central Circle, Kota vide order dated 27.12.2019. It was submitted that as per the provisions of law, in search cases, the Assessing Officer before passing assessment order framed u/s 153A is required to take the approval from Jt. CIT u/s 153D of the Act if the Assessing Officer is below the rank of Jt. CIT and in this respect our attention was invited to the provisions of section 153D of the Act. It was submitted that Jt. CIT is the approving authority who, before granting approval, is required to see all search material including incriminating material, seized documents, appraisal report, enquiries made by the investigation wing and various enquiries made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the replies submitted by the assessee and after due application of mind and after ascertaining that the Assessing Officer has appreciated the search material and other evidences in proper perspective has to give approval to the draft assessment order and only after that Assessing Officer can pass the assessment order. 10.1 The ld. AR has further vehemently argued that the draft assessment orders for all the seven (7)assessment years were sent for approval by the AO to the ld.

to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. Addl. CIT on 24.12.2019 and the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for all the cases on 26.12.2019. The ld. AR pointed out that the ld. Addl. CIT while granting the approval had not given any independent finding or any reasoning showing even the thought process of the approving authority, which is a bare minimum requirement of the approving authority. He argued that while elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft assessment orders and finds that it meets the requirement of law. 10.2 Moreover, our attention was invited to copy of order passed u/s 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 07.10.2024 placed at pages 137 to 139 of the Paper Book, as per which the concerned ACIT granted approval u/s 153D in 200 cases in a single day i.e on 26.12.2019. The ld. A/R submitted that it is humanly impossible to go through 200 assessment orders along with their all-search material including incriminating material, seized documents, appraisal report, enquiries made by the investigation wing and various enquiries made by the Assessing Officer in a single day. It was submitted that whenever a superior authority grants ‘approval’ to an ‘order’ of subordinate authority then the superior authority must apply his mind to all material on record, basis of order made by subordinate authority and superior authority must ensure that the subordinate authority has followed due process of law and has not taken arbitrary decisions. It was submitted to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. that the obligation of the approval of the approving authority is of two fold i.e. on one hand, he has to apply his mind to ensure the interest of the Revenue against any omission or negligence by the Assessing Officer in taxing right income in the hands of right person and in right assessment year and on the other hand, superior authority is also responsible and duty bound to do justice with the taxpayer by granting protection against arbitrary or creating baseless tax liability on the assessee. 10.3 The ld. AR argued that in the case of search, assessment orders whether framed under section 153A or 153C of the Act, the Joint Commissioner i.e. approving authority is required to see that whether the additions have been made in the hands of assessee are based properly based on incriminating and/ or other material found during the course of search and further enquiries made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The Joint Commissioner is also required to verify whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not at the time of framing the assessment. The ld. AR also argued that the approval cannot be mere discretion or formality but is mandatory being quasi-judicial function and Act requires that it should be based on application of mind and proper reasoning. It is a trite law that for granting approval u/s 153D of the Act, the approving authority shall have to apply to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. independent mind to the material on record for each assessment year in respect of each assessee separately. 10.4 It was submitted that the rationale of word ‘each’ as specifically referred to in section 153D and section 153A deserves to be given effective/proper meaning so that the underlying legislative intent as per the scheme of assessment of section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was submitted that Addl. CIT in these cases has granted approval for all the assessees for all assessment years through a single approval letter which is against the intent of law and therefore, also the approval given by Addl.CIT is non est and consequential assessment made on this basis of such approval is illegal and deserves to be annulled. The ld. A/R of the assessee in support of his contention relied on the following judgments :- a) ACIT vs. Serajuddin& Co. (2023) 333 CTR (Ori) 228 b) ACIT vs. Serajuddin& Co. (SC) SLP (C) NO. 44989/2023 c) CIT vs S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) d) CIT vs S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) (SLP (C) NO.11916 OF 2015) e) PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) f) CBDT Circular No. 3/2008 g) PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxman.com 2 (Delhi) h) PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal (2024) 165 taxman.com 3 (SC)

16.

It was observed that this is an important concept mentioned in Section 153A of the Act, which is peculiar to the scheme of the said Section. Keeping in view of this basic fundamental features of Section 153A, if Section 153D is scrutinized, then, it would become manifest that an important phrase is employed in the text of Section 153D, which is "each assessment year". The reading of the provisions in Section 153A and 153Dconjointly makes it clear that separate approval of draft assessment order for each year is to be obtained undersection 153D of the Income-tax Act. In its erudite judgement with the discussion on the legislative intent of Section 153A to 153D and the meaning of the "approval" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary as also the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sahara India(Firm) v. CIT [2008] 169 Taxman 328/300 ITR 403(SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in-built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that the approval envisaged in the section is not turned into an empty ritual. The Apex Court has held therein that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. *** Section 153D requires that the Assessing Officer shall obtain prior approval of the Joint Commissioner in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A which provides for assessment in case of search under section 132. Section 153A(1)(a) requires that the assessee on a notice issued to him by the Assessing Officer would be required to furnish the return of income in respect of "each assessment year" falling within six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years), referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A. to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. The proviso to section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years(and for the relevant assessment year or years).

“6. We have heard the rival contentions and have perused the material on record. The main contention of learned Authorised Representative is that reasonable time was not available with the Joint Commissioner for the grant of necessary approval as envisaged under section 153D of the Act. We have perused the forwarding letter dt. 30-3-2013 seeking approval of the draft assessment order. The date of receipt of this letter in the office of Joint Commissioner is indisputably on 31-3-2013 which is apparent from the date stamped on it by the office of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, this leaves no doubt that the letter requesting grant of approval and the granting of approval, both, are within one day of each other. This lends credence to the contention of the learned Authorized Representative that the draft assessment order was approved without much deliberation by the Joint Commissioner. Further, the time of the fax granting approval is 6.56 a.m. on 31-3-2013 which is prior to the office hours and, thus, it brings out a reasonable doubt that the approval was granted even before the letter requesting the approval was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner. Further, the response received by the assessee in response to his application under Right to Information Act, 2005 also establishes the correctness of the claim of the assessee that the assessment records were not before the Joint Commissioner when the approval was granted as the records were with the Range Office in Jodhpur whereas the approval was sent by fax on the morning of 31-3-2013 from Udaipur. Thus, it is our considered opinion that the Joint Commissioner had granted approval in a mechanical manner without examining the case records because the approval has been granted at 6.56 a.m. on 31-3-2013 from Udaipur wherein to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. it has already been mentioned that the assessment records were being returned whereas the draft assessment order along with the assessment records were handed over to the office of the Joint Commissioner on 31-3-2013 and as such it was physically impossible that all the case records along with the draft assessment order were received by the Joint Commissioner at Udaipur.

****** 6.4 Coming to the facts of the case, it is apparent from the documents on record that the approval was given by the Joint Commissioner in hasty manner without even going through the records as the records were in Jodhpur while the Joint Commissioner was camping at Udaipur. The entire exercise of seeking and granting of approval in all the 22 cases was completed in one single day itself i.e., 31-3-2013. Thus, it is apparent that the Joint Commissioner did not have adequate time to apply his mind to the material on the basis of which the assessing officer had made the draft assessment orders. Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in their orders, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, have laid down that the power to grant approval is not to be exercised casually and in routine manner and further the concerned authority, while granting approval, is expected to examine the entire material before approving the assessment order. It has also been laid down that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any authority, such authority is legally required to discharge the obligation by application of mind. In all the cases before us, the Department could not demonstrate, by cogent evidence, that the Joint Commissioner had adequate time with him so as to grant approval after duly examining the material prior to approving the assessment order. The circumstances indicate that this exercise was carried out by the Joint Commissioner in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Accordingly, respectfully following the ratio of the Co-ordinate Benches of Mumbai and Allahabad as afore- mentioned and also applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (supra), we hold that the Joint Commissioner has failed to grant approval in terms of section 153D of the Act i.e., after application of mind but has rather carried out exercise in utmost haste and in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the approval so granted by him is not an approval which can be sustained. Accordingly, assessments in three COs and nineteen appeals of the assessee(s), on identical facts, are liable to be annulled as suffering from the incurable defect of the approval not being proper. Accordingly, we annul the assessment orders in CO Nos. 8 to 10/Jodh/2016 and to 331/Jodh/2016. Thus, all the three COs and the nineteen appeals of the assessee, as aforesaid, are allowed.” to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has been granted by the Addl.CIT in the instant case before us in a mechanical manner without due application of mind as contemplated under the law. 10.9 In the instant case, a bare perusal of the impugned approval u/s 153D granted by the Addl. CIT makes it clear that the impugned letter simply grants an approval, without even a token of mention of any independent application of mind by the said approving authority. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. There is no indication of examination of evidences, documents, statements of various persons etc. by the Addl. CIT i.e. approving authority. Further, as appears from the letter of the Assessing Officer seeking approval, he has sent only the draft assessment order without any assessment records or the search material. Resultantly, the impugned approval order u/s 153D also shows that the said approval was granted without examining the assessment record or the search material. 10.10 On an examination of the above documents, we also find that Assessing Officer, Kota sought approval from the approving authority i.e. Addl. CIT vide letter Udaipur dated 24.12.2019. The office of AO is located in Kota and the office to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. of Addl. CIT is located in Udaipur, distance of which by road is about 280 Kms (approx.) and hence the same would have practically received by the Addl. CIT in the evening of 24th Dec 2019 only. Thereafter, 25th Dec 2019 was Christmas and thus, an official holiday. The very next date, on 26th Dec 2019, the Addl. CIT granted approval in instant case, along with 193 other cases. Therefore, the period of time available to Addl. CIT is only one day, which is not enough to look into all the facts and details of search proceedings, the detailed and voluminous orders containing number of evidences, documents, statements of various persons etc. Thus, it clearly suggests there was no sufficient time for the Addl. CIT to look into to all the evidences, documents, statements of various persons in one day i.e. 26.12.2019; as 25.12.2019 being Christmas holiday. Hence, the approval granted by the Addl. CIT clearly lacks any application of mind and the approval granted in mechanical manner cannot be said to be valid approval taken in the eye of law. 10.11 Further, the Approving Authority has 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. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in PCIT vs Sapna Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288/[2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]tooknote of this fact and to 672/JPR/2024 Resonance Eduventures Ltd., Kota. quashed the search assessment holding that the "approval" as contemplated under 153D of the Act, requires the approving authority, 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. Whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl.CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together.