← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimitaya Properties Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1922/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimitaya Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1510/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 | | CO No.153/Del/2023 | -do | | (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 | 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimitaya Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1509/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimitaya Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1508/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

Nimitaya Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

Nimitaya Properties Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5590/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

Nimitaya Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5589/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Ms Anita Rani, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5313/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 153A

dated 30.11.2011 CO No.153/Del/2023 -do - (ITA No.509/Del/2012), AY : 2007-08 2. Heard and perused the record. The ld. counsel has raised the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act and we find that in all these appeals, by way of application under Rule 11 of the Income

Mr. Rajesh Govind Chouhan, Pune vs. JCIT Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2590/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2590/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Rajesh Govind Chouhan, V The Joint Commissioner Plot No.14, Shree Hari S. Of Income-Tax, Central Banglow, Nandadeep Society, Circle-1(3), Pune. Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Maharashtra. Pan: Adlpc5054E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vindo Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 14.10.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per

Section 120(4)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Pr.CIT granting approval u/s 151 of the Act have not applied their mind on the case records and Ld. Pr.CIT has granted a mechanical approval. Thus, the Assessment Proceedings initiated on the basis of such mechanical approval be kindly quashed and accordingly Appellant be granted just and proper relief

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Bhupendra Steels P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Bhupendra Steels P. Ltd., Gurugram. 1098, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaacb0104B) Co No.101/Del/2023 (In Ita No.710/Del/2020) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bhupendra Steels P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1098, Chitranjan Park, Gurugram. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaacb0104B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2025 Date Of Order : 20.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.12.2019 For Ay 2011-12 & The Assessee Has Also Filed

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 153(1)(b)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 153D

obtaining the prior approval of JCIT, which in the present case has not been obtained inasmuch as the approval which has been accorded is mechanical approval bereft of any application of mind as can be seen from the approval and also brought to our notice paper book page 146 which ... relied on the findings of Assessing Officer and submitted detailed written submissions before us and submitted that the issue under consideration is not a mechanical approval and in this regard, he has relied on several case laws which are mentioned in the written submissions. He further submitted that the fact

Bharpur Singh, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6(2) Mohali, Mohali

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.226/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Bharpur Singh Ito. Ward No. 6(2), House No. 430 Phase 2 बनाम/ Vs. Mohali. Mohali-160055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abzps-6480-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 28-12-2018. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Cash

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

reopened following due process of law and after obtaining the requisite approval of appropriate authority. The Ld. AR has stated that the approval was mechanical approval. However, the plea could not be accepted since whatever information was available before Ld. AO at the time of reopening, the same

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

DCIT v. Manish Uppal to total income assessed earlier. Learned PCIT approved the said initiation, which shows complete non- application of mind and mechanical approval accorded. • Learned AO further, fails to record in the reasons that the assessee has failed to fully and truly disclose the facts (first proviso ... Assessee has filed Rule 27 Application with regards to reopening of assessment. CONTENTIONS IN BRIEF - PROPOSITION WISE: PROPOSITION 1: THAT APPROVAL GRANTED IS A MECHANICAL APPROVAL AND HENCE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON THIS GROUND IS INVALID. 15 DCIT v. Manish Uppal (i) Learned PCIT

Sohan Lal Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sohan Lal Singla (Aop), Vs. Dcit, 13/7, Gd Industrial Complex, Central Circle-1, Main Mathura Road, Faridbad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadas1739G

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153A(1)(b)

granting approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This approval was held by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High court to be a mechanical approval. The relevant observation of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in this regard are reproduced herein:- 11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates

M/S. Shankar Gas & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S. Shankar Gas & Mfg. Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd (Amalgamated Ward-6(3), Company For Maverick Sweets & New Delhi Foods Ltd (Formerly Ganpati Foods Ltd) 62, G-1, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg4663N Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Ostwal, Adv Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Shri Vishal Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

granting approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This approval was held by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High court to be a mechanical approval. The relevant observation of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in this regard are reproduced herein:- 11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates

Smt Nirakumari Virendra Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6177/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250

grounds raised in respect of failure to obtain sanction u/s. 151 of the Act and/or if taken, the same is beyond jurisdiction and/or mechanical approval given without application of mind and hence, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed; d. without prejudice

Rekha Modi, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4559/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Rekha Modi Vs. Jcit Central Circle -1 E-380, First Floor, Greater Noida Kailash Part-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaepm8105E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153DSection 156Section 69A

this ground, the AR has challenged the validity of the assessment framed by the AO on the basis that there is a mechanical approval by the Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act. On consideration of the facts of the case, it is seen that the contentions ... that the order has been passed after a mechanical approval of the Addl. CIT is without merits as the cases are thoroughly discussed with the Range Head during the course of assessment and only after due application of mind, the approval is given by the Range Head. Moreover

Shanker Lal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3808/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Shanker Lal Vs Ito C/O-Sumer Garg & Co. Ward-36(1) 501A, Itl Northex Tower Delhi. A-09, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Abgpl9915J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.C.Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 Order

Section 147

clearly not fulfilled. The notice issued under s. 148 is time barred on this score too. (d) The Pr.CIT has granted mechanical approval without being privy to the vital facts of assessment having been already framed under s. 143(3) of the Act and thus the approval granted is also

Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 5235/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 148Section 151Section 153D

examining all the records, approvals are granted and there is a presumption of application of mind. It was submitted that even using the term ‘mechanical approval’ is a misnomer and unless prejudice is established, approval granted cannot be questioned more so, when objection is not raised at the time

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Raman Chawla, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Agni Chaudhary, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 151

position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore. 4. All other pleadings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar Prop. Lalit Co., Mis Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 684/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 147Section 68

resorting to notice u/s 148 as there was no reason to believe for re-opening of the assessment and also that there was mechanical approval accorded by the higher authorities u/s 151 and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground with regard to the re-opening