Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted on M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. and its related entities, including the assessee, on 20/07/2018. Subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20 under Section 153A, based on a consolidated approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D for all these years. The assessee challenged the validity of these assessment orders, arguing that the Section 153D approval was mechanical and without due application of mind.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments, held that the approval granted under Section 153D must reflect independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, and cannot be a mere formality or 'rubber stamping'. Finding that a single, joint approval was given for seven assessment years without any indication of a reasoned thought process, the Tribunal concluded that the approval was mechanical and vitiated the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders for AYs 2016-17 to 2019-20 were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the consolidated approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years was mechanical and arbitrary, thereby vitiating the consequential assessment orders passed under Section 153A.
Sections Cited
132, 123, 153D, 153A, 143(3), 158BG, 119, 144A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
(A.Y 2019-20) DCIT Vs Capital Power Systems Central Circle-04, ARA Centre, Limited, 3721/2, 1st Floor, Jhandewalan, Extension, New Netaji Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACC0119R Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv Revenue by Ms. Ranu Mukherjee, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 31/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/12/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The Assessee filed captioned Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and the Revenue filed an Appeal for Assessment Years2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, wherein both the parties assailed the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi,(Ld. ‘CIT(A)’ for short), dated 17/11/2023 (A.Y 2016-17), 21/11/2023 (A.Y 2017-18), 13/12/202 (A.Y 2018-19), 14/12/2023 (A.Y 2019-20)respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 20/07/2018 on M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. and its related entities (SMC Group of cases). A search warrant of authorization u/s 123 of the Act was issued in the name of the Assessee and search was carried out on 20/07/2018. An approval u/s 153D of the Act dated 10/04/2021 has been accorded by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, New Delhi for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20.
Based on the said approval granted u/s 153D of the Act, assessment proceedings have been initiated against the Assessee for the assessment years under consideration. Assessment orders came to be passed u/s 153A of the Acton 10/04/2021 by making various additions for Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2019-20 which are the subject matter of present Appeals. As against the assessment orders, Assessee preferred Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed certain additions made by the A.O. vide orders impugned, which are called in question before us in the captioned Appeals filed by the Assessee.
The Revenue has also filed Appeals against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to Assessment Years 2017-18to 2019-20, challenging the deletion of certain additions/disallowances made by the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. SeniorCounsel for the Assessee addressing on the Ground Ground No. 3 in Ground No. 6 in of the Appeals, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in lawin confirming the orders passed by the A.O. despite the fact that assessments have been passed based on the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act in violation of the provisions of the law and without applying mind. Further submitted that a consolidated approval has been granted comprising of 7 Assessment Years in total. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without their being any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory pre- conditions of the Act as such the assessment so framed is null and void.
The Ld. Counsel relying on the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar dated 15/05/2024 in (CMP No. 28994/2024)
–(163 taxmann.com9)and other Judicial pronouncements, sought for allowing the Appeal and prayed for quashing the assessment order.
Per contra, The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the role of the Ld. ACIT, Central Range is totally different from the role of an ACIT in the normal range. The Central Range, the ld. ACIT is involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing and is involved with the Ld. AO from time to time while issuing various questionnaires.
The ld. ACIT in Central Range also examined the seized documents in detail in respect of each Assessment Years immediately after receipt of the appraisal report and provided able assistance to the Ld. AO about the interpretation of the said seized documents while issuing questionnaires to Assessees, examining the replies filed by the Assessees and drawing conclusions thereon. Thus, submitted that it is very easy for the ld. ACIT to grant approval of the draft assessment orders since the Ld. ACIT is involved with the assessment proceedings right from the inception. Therefore, submitted that the by contention of the Assessee's Representative that the Ld. ACIT has given mechanical approval has no force and the approval has been accorded by duly applied the mind.
Further, the Ld. DR vehemently argued that bare reading of provisions of section 153D of the Act, which provides only about existence of approval from the ld. ACIT. There is no mention of application of mind on the part of the ld. ACIT or the approving authority in the said section. The expression “application of mind” is only provided by the judicial decisions and not provided in the statute.
Further submitted that, the literal interpretation is to be given to the provisions of section 153D of the Act which does not provide for application of mind of the approving authority and hence any other interpretation contrary to the same would only result in re-writing the law. The Ld. DR also argued that in some of the cases the Assessee files details at the last moment and that is why the approval is obtained from Ld. ACIT in the last moment. The Ld. Department's Representative has also submitted that the Grounds challenging the approval issued u/s 153D of the Act has not been raised before the Ld. CIT(A), which cannot be raised before the Tribunal in the belated stage. The Ld. Department's Representative further submitted that the approval has been accorded jointly in the case of the Assessee pertaining to 7 Assessment Years as the assessments have been carried out based on the single search and seizure operation and the seized documents are having baring on multiple Assessment Years and same are pertaining to both the Assessees, therefore, it is a need to accord single and consolidated approval which has been correctly accorded by the ACIT.
The Ld. Department's Representative further submitted that,the intention of legislature is to recover just tax by the Department from the Assessee, which cannot be curtailed on the basis of the technicalities and submitted that in the present Appeals huge tax demands are arising and the Revenue has very good case on merit. The Ld. Department's Representative further relied on the order of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 24/10/2025 in the case of KailashGahlotVs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in and submitted that the approval u/s 153D of the Act is a mere administrative order which cannot be put to scrutiny by the Tribunal as the same is not appealable before the Tribunal. Thus,the Ld. Department's Representative sought for dismissal of the Grounds of Appeal challenging the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and also verified material available on record and the case laws cited. The legal objection of transgression of requirement of approval under S. 153D of the Act is in question which has the effect on the very substratum of the assessments and consequential appellate proceedings.
For the purpose of deciding the issue of legality or otherwise of approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act and the consequential assessment proceedings, we shall straightway advert to the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act. For the sake of ready reference, theapproval accorded under Section 153D of the Act dated 10/04/2021 by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, New Delhi addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, New Delhi is reproduced hereunder:-
On a bare perusal of the approval dated 10/04/2021 addressed by Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, New Delhi, it emerges that the approval has been accorded in respect of 7 Assessment Years involved in the present Appeals. The Addl. CIT, has not uttered a word on the subject matter of additions in the approval letter. The approval is in the nature of Performa approval; the approval granted smacks of mechanical or perfunctory approval in a symbolic exercise of powers vested under Section 153D of the Act. Apart from the same, single approval has been granted for 7 Assessment Years pertaining to the Assessee.
The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) held as under:-
“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, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 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.***
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.
13. 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 OnLineOri 992] to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:- "22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 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 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 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. As explained in the above cases, the mere repeating of the words of the statute, or mere "rubber stamping" of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like "seen" or "approved" will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in the context of section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply to section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (i) the Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order "well in time". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving him sufficient time to apply his mind ; (ii) the final approval must be in writing ; (iii) the fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order." [Emphasis supplied]
14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case of Serajuddin (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme 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 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.
16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:-
"10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft 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 assessment years in the case of Smt. NeetuNayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. NeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the 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 evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. NeetuNayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessees, which information is not available before us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together."
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.”
Significantly, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT vsSerajuddin& Co. 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) had an occasion to examine substantial question of law on the propriety of approval granted under Section 153D of the Act. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court made wide ranging observations towards the manner and legality of approval under S. 153D of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court inter-alia observed that the approval under Section 153D of the Act being mandatory, while elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that approving authority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of law. The approving authority is expected to indicate his thought process while granting approval, held that it is not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable.
Where the Court finds that the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. The approval letter simply grants approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of approving authority having to indicate what thought process involved leading to the aforementioned approval has not been provided. As explained, the mere repeating of words of the Statue or mere rubber stamping of the communication seeking sanction by using similar words like ‘approval’ will not, by itself, meet the requirement of law. The Hon’ble Court made reference to manual issued by the CBDT in the context of erstwhile section 158BG of the Act and observed that such manual serves as a guideline to the AOs. Since it was issued by CBDT, the powers of issuing such guidelines can be traced to section 119 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also held that non-compliance of requirement of section 153D of the Act is not a mere procedural irregularity and lapse committed by Revenue may vitiate the assessment order.
The ratio of judgment delivered in the case of ACIT vsSerajuddin& Co. Kolkata; PCIT vsAnuj Bansal; PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar; and PCIT vsSubhashDabas (supra) have held in chorus that the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act, if granted mechanically, will vitiate the assessment order itself. The SLP filed against the aforesaid judgment in the case of ACIT vsSerajuddin& Co. Kolkata was dismissed as reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC).
In so far as the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kailash Gahlot-ITA No. 3431/Del/2023 (supra) relied by the Ld. Department's Representative is concerned, the said appeal in has been heard on 28/07/2025 and the Final order has been passed in the said matter on 24/10/2025. However, it is brought to the notice of the Bench that, the very same issue regarding approval u/s 153D of the Act has been referred to third member in ITA No. 6158/Del/2018 and other connected Appeals in the case of Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and pursuant to the order of the third member, the consequential order came to be passed on 12/09/2017, wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the Assessee. The relevant portion of the observation made by the third member is reproduced as under:-
“21. I notethe above observations of learned Accountant Member and is of the view that assessment proceedings or any proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer which affect the levy of tax on the subject are judicial in nature. It is well-settled that the Assessing Officer upon whom jurisdiction has been conferred to make all orders judicially, has to act independently. The Assessing Officer, while framing assessment, cannot act on the advice given by an outsider even though he may be an authority higher in rank to him in official hierarchy. Higher authorities that include Additional CIT/JCIT under whom the Assessing Officer is administratively under control, are not entitled to give opinion or advice in regard to assessment proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature. This is, however, subject to the provisions of Section 144A of the Act, where the assessee or the Assessing Officer suo-moto can refer the matter but, for that, he has to invoke this provision. This view is supported by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DinshawDarabshaw Shroff Vs. CIT – [1943] 11 ITR 172 (Bom), wherein it is held that although the Assessing Officer making an assessment is not acting as a court of law, it is clear that while framing assessment is acting in quasi-judicial capacity, and he ought to conform to the more elementary rules of judicial procedure, and in particular to conduct the case himself, and not allow somebody else, even his superior officer, to interfere in the conduct of the case. What to talk of superior authority, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. – AIR 1998 SC 287, 288, held that the Assessing Officer is entitled to complete the assessment as per the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act and, for this purpose, he can call for and examine whatever document he considers relevant. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if the Assessing Officer fails to follow any judgment of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, the assessee has adequate statutory remedies by way of an appeal and revision against the assessment order but, the Court should not try to control the mode and manner in which an assessment should be made. Hence, the higher authority including the Additional CIT/JCIT or CIT or CCIT, being administrative controlling authorities of the Assessing Officer, are not entitled to interfere in the judicial process of the Assessing Officer while framing assessment. In view of the above, I am of the view that, while making an assessment, the Assessing Officer is solely to be guided by the provisions of law and he cannot avail of any instructions or directions given by his higher authority including CBDT in making a particular assessment in a particular way. While passing assessment orders, he is only bound by what, if any, has been directed under Section 144A of the Act by his Additional CIT/JCIT or the instructions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act or what has been decided by the appellate authorities as mentioned in the Act. He has also to follow the precedence established by Hon’ble High Courts or the Supreme Court. The proceeding under Section 153D for granting approval is entirely different from the process of making assessment. Once draft assessment is prepared, the process of approval starts under Section 153D of the Act. Then the authority prescribed under Section 153D i.e., the Additional CIT/JCIT has to apply his mind for grant of approval after verifying the assessment records, seized records, etc.
I noted that the common thread discussed by Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Serajuddin& Co. (supra), by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra) and by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) is that the requirement of previous approval of assessment by the Additional CIT/Joint CIT in terms of provisions of Section 153D of the Act being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see to it that the requirement of the previous approval, envisaged in the Section is not turned into an empty formality. Needless to say that before granting approval, the Additional CIT/Joint CIT, as the case may be, must have before him the material on the basis whereof an opinion in this behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. The CBDT itself recognized the importance of this provision and the above laid down principle and hence issued Manual of Office Procedure in February, 2023 in exercise of powers under Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II (Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft assessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual, the Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in time along with docketed in the order sheet, a copy of the draft assessment order, covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Even, it is noted that due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before the time barring date. It is further noted that once such approval is granted, it must be in writing and filed in the relevant folder indicating above after making due entry in the order sheet. This is the mandate provided in the office manual of the Department.In view ofabove, I am of the view that the ‘approval’, as mandated u/s 153D of the Act,signifies a product of human thoughts based on the given set of facts and interpretation of the applicable law. It provides equality in treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue, remains.
In the present case before me, the above procedure is not at all followed as is evident from the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer as reproduced in Paragraph 10. It means that the approval granted is mechanical in manner and without application of mind by the approving authority i.e., by the Additional CIT. Now, in view of the above discussion and legal position, I answer the question as under:- Question framed by the Bench Answer to the Question As to whether under the present facts In the given facts and circumstances of and circumstances of the matters, the the case and discussion carried above, approval granted by the ACIT, dated the approval granted by Additional CIT 27.12.2016 under Section 153D of the dated 27.12.2016 u/s 153D of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 are sustainable is not sustainable in the eyes of law. in the eyes of law or not Question framed by the Bench. In terms of the above, I concur with the decision of learned Judicial Member quashing the above assessments. The matter shall now be placed before the regular Bench for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the majority opinion.”
As stated above, though the order in the case of KailashGahlot (supra) has been passed on 24/10/2025, however, the hearing was concluded in the said case on 28/07/2025 itself. The order giving effect to the order of the third member in the case of Dheeraj Chaudhary in has been passed on 12/09/2025. Thus, as on the date of hearing in the case of Kailash Gahlot (supra), the Bench was not having the benefit of the order of the third member in the case of Dheeraj Chaudhary (supra). Apart from the same, in the case of Kailash Gahlot (supra), the Tribunal has not considered the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Courtin the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com9 dated 15/05/2024 (CMP No. 28994/2024) and other Judicial pronouncements, therefore, order of the Tribunal in the case of Kailash Gahlot (supra) cannot be a ratio decidendi and the same is per incuriam, which is not binding on us.
As noted above, in the instant case, single-joint approval u/s 153D has been accorded in respect of 7 Assessment Years pertaining to the Assessee, there is no mentioning of any communication between A.O. and the Additional commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Range-1, New Delhi to prove the involvement of the superior authority in the approval granted by the ACIT.In the absence of any contrary binding jurisprudence brought to the notice of the Bench and by applying the ratio of judgments delivered as noted above, we are of the opinion that, the assessment orders based on ritualistic approval stands vitiated and thus the Assessment Orders are hereby quashed by allowing Ground No. 2 in Ground of the Appealsfiled by the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in of the Appeals are partly allowed.
17. Since, we have quashed the Assessment Orders for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2019-20on the ground of erroneous approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act, we do not consider it necessary to address on other legal and factual contentions raised in the other grounds of Appeal of the Assessee.
18. As we have quashed the Assessment Orders pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 on the ground of erroneous approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act, Appeals filed by the Revenue have become in-fructuous. Accordingly Appeals of the Revenue dismissed.