← All Phrases

“mechanical approval”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 1511,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for mechanical approval is PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (163 Taxmann.com 9), cited in 597 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mechanical approval

PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar
163 Taxmann.com 9 · 2024 · High Court
597
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D for search assessments is invalid if granted mechanically, hastily, or without due application of mind, such as on the same day as the proposal or in a bunched manner. Such an invalid approval renders the consequential assessment order under Section 153A void ab initio.

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.
64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

A mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151, made without independent application of mind, vitiates and renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Such approvals, often indicated by brief, unreasoned endorsements, lead to the quashing of the reopening of assessment.

ACIT v. Sirajuddin& Co.
150 Taxmann.com 146 · 2023 · High Court
288
citing judgments

An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act must demonstrate that the approving authority applied its mind to the draft assessment order, and a perfunctory or mechanical approval invalidates subsequent adjustments.

Shreelekha Damani v. DCIT
173 TTJ 332 · 2015 · ITAT
236
citing judgments

Approval granted by a superior authority under Section 153D in a mechanical or perfunctory manner, without proper application of mind, lacks legal sanctity and renders the subsequent assessment order null and void.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Madhya Pradesh in CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 390 · 2015 · High Court
188
citing judgments

A sanction for issuing a notice under section 148 is invalid if the sanctioning authority grants approval mechanically, merely recording 'Yes, I am satisfied' without proper application of mind to the reasons for reassessment. The authority must demonstrate proper consideration to fulfill the statutory obligation under section 151.

PCIT v. Anuj Bansal
165 Taxmann.com 2 · 2024 · High Court
181
citing judgments

An approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is considered mechanical and invalid if granted without application of mind and without perusing relevant assessment records, including seized material. This principle has been affirmed by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Vijayadevi Naval Kishore Bharatia v. Land Acquisition Officer
5 SCC 83 · 2003 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

Statutory approvals required under the Income Tax Act, particularly for assessments, must reflect a genuine application of mind by the approving authority and cannot be mechanical or granted without due consideration.

Judgments citing mechanical approval

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3175/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3174/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Cricle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3173/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3172/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3171/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 3170/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1 Fbd, Faridabad

ITA 3169/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

before the approving authority. Hence, the allegation that approval was granted without consideration of seized material is devoid of merit. 4. No Inference of Mechanical Approval  The approval letter itself makes it evident that the Addl. CIT had perused the assessment records and seized material. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred ... informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt of the proposal does not imply mechanical approval. 6. Approval - A Question of Fact The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has repeatedly held that validity of approval under section 153D is essentially

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

assessee filed a written submission wherein he first pressed Ground of Appeal No.1.8, challenging the re- opening of assessment on the basis of mechanical approval granted u/s 151 of the Act. Ld. AR submits that sanction given by Ld. Pr. CIT dated 31.03.2016 was mechanical and given without applying ... case of Sudha Surana ITA 1372/Kol/22024 (01.04.2025) 5. It is thus, prayed by Ld.AR that re-assessment proceedings being initiated on the basis of mechanical approval without independent application of mind by Ld. Pr. CIT deserves to be hold bad in law and consequent order passed to be annulled