← 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

Sh. Vikram Dhirani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4475/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vikram Dhirani Vs. Acit, D-1039, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-7, New Delhi-110065 (Old Central Circle-12) Pan : Ahtpd6528L New Delhi Ita No.4647 To 4652 /Del/2016 A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Sh. Vikram Dhirani Central Circle-7, D-1039, New Friends (Old Central Circle-12) Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 Pan : Ahtpd6528L

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153A

unable to justify if any further information was received. 7.5 Arguing on the additional ground it was submitted that there was mechanical approval given in the case. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the information in the Form of bank statement reflected all the necessary inputs required

Sh. Vikram Dhirani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4100/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vikram Dhirani Vs. Acit, D-1039, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-7, New Delhi-110065 (Old Central Circle-12) Pan : Ahtpd6528L New Delhi Ita No.4647 To 4652 /Del/2016 A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Sh. Vikram Dhirani Central Circle-7, D-1039, New Friends (Old Central Circle-12) Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 Pan : Ahtpd6528L

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153A

unable to justify if any further information was received. 7.5 Arguing on the additional ground it was submitted that there was mechanical approval given in the case. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the information in the Form of bank statement reflected all the necessary inputs required

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that approval granted u/s. 151(1) of the Act was a mechanical approval and hence initiation of proceedings u/s 147 was illegal and invalid. 6. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that approval granted u/s. 151(1) of the Act was a mechanical approval and hence initiation of proceedings u/s 147 was illegal and invalid. 6. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that approval granted u/s. 151(1) of the Act was a mechanical approval and hence initiation of proceedings u/s 147 was illegal and invalid. 6. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5403/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Ito Ward-1, Meerut, S/O. Kashi Ram, Umes Distt. Meerut (Up) Vihar, 78-D, Naveen Mandi, Vs. Transport Nagar, Meerut Pan Ankpa8702E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

please be quashed as nullity being founded on non-existent reasons; 6. That impugned reopening action us 148 is based on invalid and mechanical approval u/s 151 of PCIT Meerut which is given in ritualistic manner and without application of mind on part of approving authority, accordingly impugned assessment order ... initiation of reassessment proceedings under 147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been based on invalid and mechanical approval u/s. 151 of the Act, wherein the Ld. PCIT Ashok Kumar Agarwal Page 5 of 9 Meerut has given approval in a mechanical manner

M/S. Osian Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward- 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 408/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Osian Stock Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C/O S M Surana Advocate Kolkata Vs Unit No. 1501 15Th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaaco3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/06/2022 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) On Legal Issue As Well As On Merit As Raised In The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Which Are Reproduced Below: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts & Disposing The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Taken Into Consideration All Legal Steps Before Initiating Action U/S 147 When The Reopening Of Assessment Was Not In Accordance With Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 151Section 250Section 68

note that the Ld. ACIT while giving the approval for reopening the assessment has either not perused these reasons and merely given a mechanical approval by stating in Item no. 11 of the approval granted dated 28.03.2017 that “Yes, I am satisfied”. In our opinion such a casual approach

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

1932/Del/2019 (authored by Hon’ble JM) • ACIT vs Shree Balkrishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd ITA No.5821/Del/2017 (authored by Hon’ble JM) b. Mechanical Approval by Pr CIT Inconsistencies and omissions pointed out in support of ground on nonapplication of mind are the glaring mistakes committed as discussed in preceding para ... same, before the approval was accorded, shows that the said authority have acted mechanically in granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act. Such mechanical approval was found to be fatal for validity of the reassessment proceedings as decided by the co-ordinate Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the RMP Holdings

M/S. Pantime Finance Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 636/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

PCIT grants approval for the same u/s 151 of the Act for reopening the assessment, the said approval could only be construed as a mechanical approval given by the ld. PCIT without due application of mind. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed ... ranking officer. Thus, in the instant case, mere mentioning of “yes‟ for approval, without any other evidence of application of the mind, amounts to mechanical approval by the LearnedPr.CIT. 10.2. Further in Column No. 7 of the proforma, the section for invoking reassessment has been recorded

Sh. Mdlr Hotels P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals by the Revenue are

ITA 3076/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

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

Ajay Trading Company, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

note that the Ld. PCIT while according to approval for reopening the assessment has either not perused these reasons and merely given a mechanical approval by stating in Item no. 13 of the approval granted dated 30.03.2019 that “Yes, I am satisfied case may be reopened”. In our opinion such

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 81/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

liable to be annulled. It was further submitted that the approval if at all is there, the same should 12 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 not be mechanical approval. Ld AR further placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seerajudin

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

liable to be annulled. It was further submitted that the approval if at all is there, the same should 12 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 not be mechanical approval. Ld AR further placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seerajudin

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

liable to be annulled. It was further submitted that the approval if at all is there, the same should 12 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 not be mechanical approval. Ld AR further placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seerajudin

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

liable to be annulled. It was further submitted that the approval if at all is there, the same should 12 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 not be mechanical approval. Ld AR further placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seerajudin

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 77/CTK/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

liable to be annulled. It was further submitted that the approval if at all is there, the same should 12 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 not be mechanical approval. Ld AR further placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seerajudin

Bibhudutta Panda, Bhubaneswar vs. Asst.CIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 76/CTK/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla/S.K.Hota, ArsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153D

liable to be annulled. It was further submitted that the approval if at all is there, the same should 12 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 not be mechanical approval. Ld AR further placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Seerajudin

Shyam Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

opening of assessment and the mechanical of approval as under:- “ On the issue of validity of reopening u/s 148, Mechanical Approval, Cross examining….. It is seen that the facts of the present case are different from the case laws relied upon by the appellant. Since, at the stage of recording ... quashed the reassessment proceedings on similar grounds. Kindly refer para’s 33 to 35 at internal page 51-53 therein. V. Mechanical Approval Granted by Pr CIT The exercise of approval u/s 151(1) of IT Act by the Ld Pr CIT, Delhi-8, New Delhi appears to have been

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

opening of assessment and the mechanical of approval as under:- “ On the issue of validity of reopening u/s 148, Mechanical Approval, Cross examining….. It is seen that the facts of the present case are different from the case laws relied upon by the appellant. Since, at the stage of recording ... quashed the reassessment proceedings on similar grounds. Kindly refer para’s 33 to 35 at internal page 51-53 therein. V. Mechanical Approval Granted by Pr CIT The exercise of approval u/s 151(1) of IT Act by the Ld Pr CIT, Delhi-8, New Delhi appears to have been

Sangita Mantri, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1424/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 54FSection 69

same must be quashed. 4. The impugned assessment order is bad in law and on facts as it is based on a mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Act given by the Addl. CIT without application of his mind as a supervisory authority on the subject and the material available