ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal noted that two assessment orders were passed for the same assessment year under different PANs. The CIT(Appeals) had not considered the cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh consideration on merit, providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of the deposits.

The Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing incorrect facts regarding the gift of shares, and failed to address other grounds of appeal. The tribunal found that the Commissioner did not properly apply his mind to the facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act in these assessment orders was without application of mind. Various judicial pronouncements and manual procedures were cited to emphasize that approval must be based on a thorough examination of the material and reflect the approving authority's application of mind, not merely a mechanical exercise. The Tribunal found that the approvals in these cases were granted mechanically, vitiating the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment orders in search or requisition cases, was not granted with due application of mind by the approving authority in these cases. The approvals were found to be mechanical and lacked proper scrutiny of the assessment records and material. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for the assessment orders was mechanical and granted without proper application of mind by the approving authority. The Tribunal referred to various High Court and ITAT decisions to support this view, emphasizing that prior approval is a mandatory requirement and cannot be a mere formality. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.