Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The primary issue revolved around the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee argued was mechanical and arbitrary.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was not a mechanical formality but required an application of mind. The Tribunal found that the approvals in the present case were granted mechanically without proper application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was valid and not mechanical, and if not, whether it vitiates the assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
153A, 153D, 68, 271(1)(c), 143(3), 153B, 114(e), 153C
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 BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
(Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashu Ashok, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 7, I – 20, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024. (PAN : ACQPA0282N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date of Order : 06.11.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:
1. 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 23.03.2022 for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. First, we take up AY 2013-14 as the lead case.
1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal in AY 2013-14 :-
1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 153A relying on search in Sukhija group, which was not on the assessee and also search action was not as per law.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in both law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.44,41,956/- in regard to purchase of property being Plot no.A-220 at Sushant Lok on the basis of seized papers, which were not reliable. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) wrongly presumed that cash was received from two persons viz. Aman and Mr. Kaku without any evidence for the same.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in both law and on facts in sustaining the addition of entry of Rs.21,00,000/- from Chitra Gupta as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though confirmation and copy of PAN was filed and AO did not bring any adverse material on record.
4. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals) has erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271( 1)( c) as there was no concealment of income.”
4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed additional ground of appeal under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and it is purely legal issue and the same is reproduced below :- “That on facts and circumstances of the case the approval accorded under section 153D of the Act (if any) is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without there being independent approval for each assessment year, without any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act and as such the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed.”
5. Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee 1045 & 1046 1044, 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 prayed that the same may be admitted in view of the judgement of NTPC prayed that the same may be admitted in view of the judgement of NTPC prayed that the same may be admitted in view of the judgement of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR
03. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC).
6. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the additional ground of appeal
being purely legal issue. additional ground of appeal being purely legal issue.
7. In view of the reliance made by the ld. AR for the assessee on the judgment In view of the reliance made by the ld. AR for the assessee on the judgment In view of the reliance made by the ld. AR for the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra) and issue being NTPC Ltd. (supra) and issue being purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a legal issue.
8. Before deciding the Before deciding the legal issue in dispute, we may gainfully reproduce the may gainfully reproduce the approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’) he Act’), which read as under:-
9. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee referred to various case laws whereby the legal issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee. However, more particularly, ld. AR drew our attention towards the ITAT Delhi Bench decision viz. M/s Millenium Vinimay (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, dated 31.5.2024 and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar in (Del), dated 15.05.2024, and submitted that by following the ratio of the aforesaid two case laws, the legal issue involved in the instant appeals may be allowed.
10. Per contra, ld. DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and objected to the submissions of the ld. AR. He submitted that the approval u/s 153D of the Act is administrative approval. The procedure to approval process has no relevance to the assessee and his proceedings. In this regard, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted written submissions and for the sake of brevity, the same is reproduced below :- “1. Preliminary Submissions • At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee's allegation of mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act is baseless, speculative, and unsupported by any material evidence. • The approval under section 153D is a statutory procedural safeguard meant to ensure that the supervisory authority - being the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax - examines the assessment record and proposal before finalization. It is not a judicial order but an administrative approval to ensure the correctness and legality of the assessment proposal.
1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 • The burden lies upon the assessee to positively establish that such approval was granted mechanically and without application of mind. Mere conjecture or assumption cannot invalidate a duly granted approval.
2. Role and Jurisdiction of the Approving Authority under Section 153D • It is not a matter of dispute that the Addl. CIT holds concurrent jurisdiction over the assessment proceedings in search cases and that such assessments are a continuous administrative process involving regular supervision and monitoring. • The approving authority is seized of the facts, seized materials, and progress of assessments from inception to completion. The absence of written notings at intermediate stages does not imply lack of application of mind. • The approval signifies due satisfaction of the Addl. CIT after examining the assessment records, including seized documents and relevant issues arising from them. • The assessee has failed to produce any material or evidence demonstrating non-application of mind by the Addl. CIT.
Nature and Scope of Section 153D Approval • The approving authority, i.e., the Addl./Joint CIT, exercises administrative and supervisory powers, not appellate or quasi-judicial functions. • The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in Kailash Gahlot v. DCIT (ITA No. 3431/De1/2023, order dated 24.10.2025) clearly held (paras 15, 19, 21 & 26) that: "The Range Head does not enter the realm of appellate jurisdiction and hence cannot go into legal merits of the additions. The approval under section 153D is administrative in nature and intended as an internal check and balance. The approving authority is not required to record elaborate reasoning; the presumption under section l14(e) of the Evidence Act applies." The Tribunal further held (para 26) that even if approval is accorded in a limited time, that fact alone does not render it mechanical or invalid, because the Range Head's involvement in search assessments is a continuous process from the time of receipt of the appraisal report until finalization. • This principle is fortified by the CBDT Guidelines F. No. 286/16112006- IT(Inv-II) dated 22.12.2006, which provide that the AO and Range Head should jointly scrutinize seized materials and prepare an examination note for issuing notices under sections l53A1l53C. Therefore, the approving 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 authority is always seized of the factual matrix well before the final approval.
4. Presumption of Regularity and Burden of Proof • As per Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed. Therefore, the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section l53D enjoys a presumption of validity unless rebutted by credible evidence. • The burden to prove non-application of mind squarely lies on the assessee, and such burden must be discharged through cogent material and not by conjectures or assumptions. • The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in Kailash Gahlot (supra) (para 16) held: "The assessee has not placed anything on record to suggest that the AO and Addl. CIT did not go through the relevant seized material or appraisal report. Allegations of non-application of mind, based merely on absence of recitals in the approval order, cannot stand. " The Revenue is not required to prove the converse unless the assessee has discharged this primary onus. The presumption of regularity remains unrebutted in the instant case.
Examination of Facts in Light" of Jurisprudence • The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal (ITA 368/2023) and PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024] 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) have emphasized that approval under section l53D should not be mechanical. However, both decisions turned on peculiar factual circumstances: In Anuj Bansal, the assessment records were not submitted to the Addl. CIT, and glaring factual discrepancies were overlooked. In Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Addl. CIT granted approval in 43 cases on the same day without any material showing that the issues were identical. • In contrast, in the instant case: Approval pertains to the 3 cases of assessee pertaining to AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. The seized documents and full assessment record were placed before the Addl. CIT. No factual infirmities or discrepancies exist in the approval letter.
1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 • Similarly, the ITAT Delhi in Seh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 25031De1l2017, dated 23.07.2024) found mechanical approval only because 232 cases were approved in one day. The instant case is factually distinguishable, involving only cases of AY 2013-14,2014-15,2015-16 and few loose papers on the basis of which addition was made, which was simple to verify.
6. Reliance on Judicial Precedents • In the recent decision of KK. Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025 (8) TMI 541), the Hon 'ble ITA T, Cochin Bench, categorically held that: "The issue whether the JCIT had accorded the approval mechanically or not has to be judged based on the material on the basis of which the JCIT formed the opinion and accorded the approval. In the present case, no material was produced before us to show that JCIT had accorded approval u/sec. 153D mechanically." The Tribunal further observed that mere bald assertions that approval was mechanical, without any supporting material, cannot vitiate the assessment. The ratio laid down in KK. Leisure & Tourism (supra) squarely applies to the present case, wherein the assessee has not placed any evidence on record to establish that the approval granted by the Addl. CIT was mechanical. Hence, no relief can be granted on mere presumptions.
7. One-Day Approval Does Not Imply Mechanical Approval • The assessee's argument that approval granted on the same day implies mechanical approval is misconceived. The law does not prescribe any minimum time for the approving authority to form satisfaction. • In the present case, there were only few loose papers forming the basis of the addition for all the three Assessment Years. The factual matrix was limited and straightforward. The Addl. CIT, being already apprised of the facts through continuous supervision, was fully capable of examining and approving the draft order on the same day. • Therefore, a one-day approval in such circumstances cannot be equated with mechanical approval, particularly when the record demonstrates that due procedure was followed.
Legal Position on Procedural Irregularity • The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 that non-compliance with procedural requirements does not render the assessment void ab initio. Such procedural lapses are curable irregularities and do not invalidate the assessment per se. • Consequently, even if minor procedural deviations are assumed, they cannot vitiate the otherwise valid substantive assessment.
Adjudication Should Be on Merits, Not Technicalities • The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP (C) No. 340 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008) have reiterated that justice must be rendered on merits and not defeated by mere technical objections. • Unless mala fides or gross irregularity are evident, the matter should be adjudicated on substantive merits. In the instant case, there is no allegation of mala fides, nor any material showing arbitrary exercise of power by the approving authority.
Objection to Admission of Additional Ground on Section 153D • The Department strongly opposes the admission of the additional ground raised
by the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT for the first time, relating to the validity of approval under section 153D. • Reliance is placed on the judgment of ITAT Allahabad in Ramji Vaish v. DCIT (Order dated 31.10.2025), wherein it was held that: An additional ground on section 153D approval, raised for the first time before the ITAT, is not maintainable. Such an issue neither emanates from the order of the CIT(A) nor falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the ITA T under section 253(1) of the Act. Documents like the AO's letter seeking approval and the JCIT's approval letter are additional evidences within the meaning of Rules 11, 18, and 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and cannot be entertained without recorded reasons. • Therefore, the additional ground does not arise from the order of the CIT(A) and falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and must be rejected in limine.
11. Principles of law and Jurisprudential Contentions • The rigors of satisfaction in criminal law cannot be imported into civil tax proceedings where approval is post-facto and administrative in nature.
1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 • Absence of recitals in an administrative order cannot, by itself, indicate non-application of mind. In law, "non-application of mind" means failure to exercise independent and conscious judgment. • Under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act, the onus is upon the assessee to prove non-application of mind by cogent evidence. The Revenue need not prove the reverse until the assessee discharges this burden. • The Supreme Court has held that there is no violation of natural justice unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Hence, an assessee alleging non- application of mind must establish tangible prejudice that could have been avoided had additional recitals been made in the approval order. • Approval under Section 153D is mandatory arid supervisory, intended to protect the interests of the Revenue, not to adjudicate the rights or liabilities of the assessee. • Prejudice, if alleged, must be viewed within the scope of the prescribed CBDT SOPs and duties of the approving authority. • The prejudice must relate to procedure, not to the merits of the assessment. The Addl. CIT does not act as an appellate body under Section 153D. • A claim of non-application of mind must rest on specific factual findings identifying procedural lapses. CIT(A) or ITAT cannot presume non- application without such evidence. • Since the approval is post-jurisdictional and administrative, if any irregularity is alleged, it must be verified factually. Quashing of assessment without such enquiry would be contrary to judicial principles; at most, the matter may be remanded to AO for rectification. In view of the foregoing:
1. 1. The approval under section 153D was granted after due consideration of assessment records and seized material.
2. The one-day approval cannot be termed mechanical given the limited factual matrix of few documents which could be examined in a single day.
3. The assessee has produced no evidence to substantiate its claim of non- application of mind.
4. The decisions cited by the assessee are distinguishable on facts, while recent authorities like KK. Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) and Ramji Vaish v. DCIT (ITAT Allahabad) directly support the Department's stand.
1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 5. The additional ground regarding section 153D is not maintainable and should not be admitted. Accordingly, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to reject the contention of the assessee on this ground and uphold the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.”
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have especially perused the approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act and the case laws cited by the ld. AR in the paper book.
12. We find that ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s Millenium Vinimay (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (supra) has dealt the similar legal issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced as under:-
15. There are several decisions, which supports the view that approval granted by the superior authority in mechanical manner defeats the very purpose of obtaining approval u/s 153D of the Act. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co- ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:-
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015.
Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no 'application of mind' on the part of the Authority granting approval? 3. Brief facts are that the Tribunal by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) for Assessment Year 2007- 08. This was on the ground that the mandatory statutory requirement of obtaining an 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 approval of the concerned authority as flowing from Section 153D of the Act, before passing the order of assessment, was not complied with.
This was not a case where no approval was granted at all. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was without application of mind and, therefore, not a valid approval in the eye of law. Tribunal reproduced the observations made by the Additional CIT while granting approval and came to the conclusion that the same suffered from lack of application of mind. The Tribunal referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in support of its conclusion that the approval whenever required under the law, must be preceded by application of mind and consideration of relevant factors before the same can be granted. The approval should not be an empty ritual and must be based on consideration of relevant material on record.
5. The learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the question of legality of the approval was raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Additional CIT had granted the approval. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the same is invalid.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the both sides and having perused the documents on record, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The Additional CIT while granting an approval for passing the order of assessment, had made following remarks : "To, The DCIT(OSD)1, Mumbai Subject: Approval u/s 153D of draft order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Nandan Damani for A.Y. 2007-08 reg. Ref: No. DCIT (OSD)1/ CR7/Appr/2010-11 dt. 31.12.2010 As per this office letter dated 20.12.2010, the Assessing Officers were asked to submit the draft orders for approval u/s 153D on or before 24.12.2010. However, this draft order has been submitted on 31.12.2010. Hence there is no much time left to analyze the issue of draft order on merit. Therefore, the draft order is being approved as it is submitted. Approval to the above said draft order is granted u/s 153D of the I. T. Act, 1961."
In plain terms, the Additional CIT recorded that the draft order for approval under Section 153D of the Act was submitted only on 31st December, 2010. Hence, there was not enough time left to analyze the issues of draft order on merit. Therefore, the order was approved as it was submitted. Clearly, therefore, the Additional CIT for want of time could not examine the issues arising out of the draft order. His action of granting the approval was thus, a mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft order as it is without any independent application of mind on his part. The Tribunal is, 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 therefore, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the approval was invalid in eye of law. We are conscious that the statute does not provide for any format in which the approval must be granted or the approval granted must be recorded. Nevertheless, when the Additional CIT while granting the approval recorded that he did not have enough time to analyze the issues arising out of the draft order, clearly this was a case in which the higher Authority had granted the approval without consideration of relevant issues. Question of validity of the approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time. In the result, no question of law arises.
8. Accordingly, the Tax Appeal is dismissed."
16. In the case of ACIT, Circle-1 (2) Vs. Serajuddin and Co. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No. 44989/2023 vide order dated 28/11/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Department of Revenue against the order dated 15/03/2023 in passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had quashed the Assessment Order on the ground of inadequacy in procedure adopted for issuing approval u/s 153D of the Act by expressing discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act.
17. Hence, vindicated by the factual position as noted in preceding paras, we find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. the Assessee's Representative on the Additional Ground of Appeal
. In our considered opinion the approvals so granted under the shelter of section 153D of the Act does not pass the test of legitimacy. The Assessment orders of various assessment years as a consequence of such inexplicable approval lacks legitimacy. Consequently, the impugned assessments orders in the captioned appeals are non-est and a nullity and hence the same are quashed.
18. In view of prima facie merits found in the legal objections raised in the Addl. Grounds of the Assessees, we do not consider it expedient to look into the aspects on merits of additions/disallowance as the legal objections on sanction granted under Section 153D of the Act has been answered in favour of the Assessee. Thus the other Grounds raised in the Appeals of the Assessee in both the Appeals have rendered in- fructuous, which do not need any separate adjudication.
19. In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in and ITA No. 295/Del/2022 are allowed.
11. Upon considering the entire aspect of the matter, we find that the approval has been granted not separately for each assessment year for the 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 assessee whereas the provision of Section 153D of the Act stipulates conditions that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. It further appears from the approval dated 08.06.2018 that the same was a common and composite order whereas the Addl. Commissioner is required to verify and approve that each of assessment year is complied with as well as procedural laid down under the Act. Such fact clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. Thus granting approval for all the common years instead of approval under Section 153B for each assessment year separately de horse the rules. The said approval is found to have been given in a mechanical and routine manner. We find that the order issuing authority has not discharged its statutory duties cast upon him even by assigning cogent reasons in respect of the issues involved in the matter. Thus granting approval in the absence of due application of independent mind to the material on record for each assessment year in respect of the assessee's case separately vitiates the entire proceedings; the same is found to be arbitrary and erroneous and therefore, liable to be quashed. We are also inspired by the ratio laid down in the Judgment narrated hereinabove passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and respectfully relying upon the same with the above observation, we quash the entire proceeding initiated under Section 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
We further find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) has decided the similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under :-
“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 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 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.
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. Neetu Nayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar 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. Neetu Nayyar. 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 1045 & 1046/DEL/2022 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.
Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through 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 judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration.”
Respectfully following the above precedents, we quash the entire proceedings initiated under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the Act Addl. CIT, Central Range – 4, Delhi.
We are refrained from adjudicating the other grounds of appeal
and at this stage, we keep the other grounds of appeal open.
16. Since the facts in AYs 3025-16 & 2015-16 are exactly similar to Assessment Year 2013-14, our above findings in AY 2013-14 are applicable mutatis mutandis in Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed.