“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

American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer without adjudicating with the additional ground raised by the appellant with respect to mechanical approval (without any application of mind and without due consideration of relevant seized material) u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the approving authority ... submits that in the present case, approval was granted by Ld. Joint CIT, Central Range-05, New Delhi vide letter dt. 29.12.2017 which is mechanical approval. Ld. AR submits that Ld. Joint CIT granted approval for AY 2010-11 to 2016-17 in terms of letter No. Joint CIT/CR-5/153D/2017- 18/1422

Vertex Customer Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 66/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

recorded in Item No.13, it could be seen that Ld.CIT(A) had recorded satisfaction by simply observing “yes, I am satisfied”. This approval is mechanical approval wherein no proper satisfaction was recorded by Ld.CIT(A). 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical

M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AYs

ITA 1337/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1194 से 1198 /िद"ी/2021 (िन.व. 2012-13, 2013-14 और 2015-16 से 2017-18)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta with S/Shri Somil Agarwal & Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

proper application of mind, hence, the same is held to be invalid. Consequently, assessment orders passed by the AO on the basis of such mechanical approval are vitiated. The assessee succeeds on ground no. 2 of appeal. 8. As ground no. 2 of appeal raising legal issue has been decided

Sudha Surana, New Delhi vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Robindro Singh, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 68

approval status as ‘approved’ and also in the remark of approving authority as ‘approved’. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that such mechanical approval by the ld. PCIT, Kolkata-18, is invalid as the same is mechanical and is a Sudha Surana; A.Y. 2015-16 invalid approval with ... wherein it was only mentioned in the approval status as approved. In our opinion, in the case of the assessee, such an approval is mechanical approval and cannot be considered as valid approval. In our opinion, the PCIT has to record the reasons and the satisfaction Sudha Surana

Sanskar Nagar, Jhansi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

Appeals stands allowed

ITA 346/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.351/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.352/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.353/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.354/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.349/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.346/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.347/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.348/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18; Smc Bench) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.350/Agr/2024

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 271D

case of Navin Jain (supra) has been relied by the Tribunal, in the instant case, to arrive at the conclusion that the mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings in the instant case. 18. For the reasoning given in the case of Navin Jain ... limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for this year had not expired. However, the assessment order would not survive on the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D. Furthermore, the material seized from third-party premises has been used in an assessment framed u/s 153A. The Hon’ble Delhi High

Sh. Manoj Goyal, Agra vs. Dy CIT, CC, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 188/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 271A

Sh. Manoj Goyal, Agra vs. Dy CIT, CC, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 186/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 271A

Sh. Manoj Goyal, Agra vs. Dy CIT, CC, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 185/AGR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (CIT) – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 271A

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

wherein, AO's action was accepted—\nAssessee contended that AO had erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 based on\ninvalid and mechanical approval granted by Addl. CIT—Held, approval granted by Addl.\nCIT was a mechanical and without application of mind, which was not valid for initiating\nre-assessment

Vibhu Prakash Bansal, Bijnor vs. DCIT Central, Moradabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid

ITA 2302/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka .Y R.: 2015-16 Vibhu Prakash Bansal (Huf), Vs. Dcit (Central), Sarrafa Bazaar, Dhampur, Moradabad Aayaka Bhawan, Civil Uttar Pradesh -246761 (Pan: Aabhv3649H) Lines, Moradabad Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 44ASection 69

Navin Jain Vs. Dy. C.I. T. (Supra) has been relied by the Tribunal, in the instant case, to arrive at the conclusion that the mechanical approval under Section 153D o f the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings in the instant case. For the reasoning given in the case

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 603/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

603/Hyd./2022 referring to special auditor, which is evident from the mechanical reference of the case of the assessee for special audit and mechanical approval by the PCIT-6, Hyderabad for reference of the case for special audit. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, further submitted that in order to invoke

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram, Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 602/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 601/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

Dongkuk Steel India Private Limited, Greater Noida vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

Vanshika Motors (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashing the assessment order was dismissed holding the approval granted under Section 153D was a mechanical approval, without application of mind, would be invalid in the eyes of law. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ... been noticed while granting approval under Section 153D of the Act by the ACIT and the same was, therefore, held to be mechanical approval. 6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that the range head is fully involved in guiding and supervising the assessment proceedings

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Mark Infra Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6208/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

preconditions of the Act and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed." Similar additional ground on mechanical approval given u/s 153D of 8. the Act has been raised for the following assessees‟:- Sl Name of the assessee ITA No. Assessment No. Year

ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Gold Cause Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 153DSection 154

Navin Jain Vs. Dy. C.I.T. (Supra) has been relied by the Tribunal, in the instant case, to arrive at the conclusion that the mechanical approval under Section 153D of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings in the instant case. For the reasoning given in the case of Navin Jain

Sudhir Bhalla, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

ITA 3174/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 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

Saroj Dewan, H.No 33 Shakti Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Ward-4, Yamuna Nagar, Jurisdiction Assessing Officer, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 720/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 148Section 151Section 69

That Worthy CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has ignored the fact that the Ld. Competent Authority (PCIT/Addl. CIT) has erred in giving a 'mechanical approval' as accorded by him u/s 151. The same is bad in law as per binding judgments of jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, Amritsar