← 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. S.L. Arora, Mohali vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 275/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 natural justice being violated, the assessee being given no proper opportunity to object to such reference and even mechanical approval by the CIT, therefore, in the light of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India

Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Mohali vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 274/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 natural justice being violated, the assessee being given no proper opportunity to object to such reference and even mechanical approval by the CIT, therefore, in the light of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. S.L. Arora, Mohali

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 1421/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 natural justice being violated, the assessee being given no proper opportunity to object to such reference and even mechanical approval by the CIT, therefore, in the light of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India

Sh.Sohan Lal Arora, Mohali vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 1326/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 natural justice being violated, the assessee being given no proper opportunity to object to such reference and even mechanical approval by the CIT, therefore, in the light of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India

Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Mohali vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 1325/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

Arora Assessment Year: 2006-07 natural justice being violated, the assessee being given no proper opportunity to object to such reference and even mechanical approval by the CIT, therefore, in the light of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India

Arvind Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-3, Thane

In the result, we quash the reassessment initiation

ITA 1798/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Arvind Mohanlal Jain Cit(A)-3 Flat No.304, Room No-30, D-Wing, Vishwanath Nagar, B-Wing, Asher It Park, Vs. Gandhi Chowk, Wagle Industrial Estate, Kulgaon, Badlapur (E) Thane 400 604 Mumbai-421 503 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpj2456J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

sanction granted by the higher Authority for issuing of a reopening notice has to be on due application of mind. It cannot be an mechanical approval without examining the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer. Prima facie, it appears to us that if the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax would

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Mukesh Kumar Somani, Kishangarh

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 352/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 69

raised in the cross objection raised by the assessee. Ground no. 3 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 3 becomes technical and infructuous

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Omanshu Sharma, Ajmer

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections of

ITA 339/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 234ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

grounds of cross objections raised by the assessee. 14. The cross-objection Ground no. 1 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No.1 becomes technical

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Chandra Kant Saini, Ajmer

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 338/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

assessee becomes technical and infructuous does not require any adjudication. Ground no. 2 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 2 becomes technical

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ajmer

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 337/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

assessee becomes technical and infructuous does not require any adjudication. Ground no. 2 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 2 becomes technical

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Mukesh Kumar Somani, Kishangarh

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 336/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 69

grounds of cross objections raised by the assessee. 17. The cross-objection Ground no. 1 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 1 becomes

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Alok Malpani, Kishangarh

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 335/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 69

raised in the cross objection raised by the assessee. Ground no. 3 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 3 becomes technical and infructuous

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Alok Malpani, Kishangarh

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 334/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 69

grounds of cross objections raised by the assessee. 17. The cross-objection Ground no. 1 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 1 becomes

Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon vs. The of Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 296/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 296/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt Taradevi R Bafna 91, Subhash Chow, Jalgaon. Pan : Aadpb9424E . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Nasik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Challenged Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-12), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/07/2018 For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 28/06/2017 Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Nasik [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271Aab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 274(2)(b)Section 292B

penalty deserves to be deleted in limine for being fatal & incurable u/s 292BB of the Act. While coming to third substantive ground alleging the mechanical approval granted by the Ld. JT CIT, the Ld. AR adverting to para 8 of penalty order pinpointed ITAT-Pune Page ... approval as one i.e. 28/06/2017. Per contra, the Ld. DR on first two grounds supported the orders of Ld. TAB and insofar as the mechanical approval is concerned the Ld. DR strongly argued that, the order imposing the penalty was culminated after the receipt of approval from the Ld. JCIT

The ACIT Central -1, Bhopal vs. Shri Sunil Sahu, Raipur

ITA 355/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

raised the following revised grounds of appeals including additional legal grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the mechanical approval granted by the Pr.CIT u/sl51 on 22-3-17 is without application of mind and in absence of 'subjective satisfaction' recorded by the Pr.CIT ... application of mind on the reasons recorded on wrong sec147(b) and not even recorded any 'subjective satisfaction' while granting such mechanical approval u/s!51(l); in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/sl51; reopening of assessment u/s147/148 is invalid, bad in law & without jurisdiction, and hence

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 158/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

raised the following revised grounds of appeals including additional legal grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the mechanical approval granted by the Pr.CIT u/sl51 on 22-3-17 is without application of mind and in absence of 'subjective satisfaction' recorded by the Pr.CIT ... application of mind on the reasons recorded on wrong sec147(b) and not even recorded any 'subjective satisfaction' while granting such mechanical approval u/s!51(l); in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/sl51; reopening of assessment u/s147/148 is invalid, bad in law & without jurisdiction, and hence

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 157/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

raised the following revised grounds of appeals including additional legal grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the mechanical approval granted by the Pr.CIT u/sl51 on 22-3-17 is without application of mind and in absence of 'subjective satisfaction' recorded by the Pr.CIT ... application of mind on the reasons recorded on wrong sec147(b) and not even recorded any 'subjective satisfaction' while granting such mechanical approval u/s!51(l); in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/sl51; reopening of assessment u/s147/148 is invalid, bad in law & without jurisdiction, and hence

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 156/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

raised the following revised grounds of appeals including additional legal grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the mechanical approval granted by the Pr.CIT u/sl51 on 22-3-17 is without application of mind and in absence of 'subjective satisfaction' recorded by the Pr.CIT ... application of mind on the reasons recorded on wrong sec147(b) and not even recorded any 'subjective satisfaction' while granting such mechanical approval u/s!51(l); in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/sl51; reopening of assessment u/s147/148 is invalid, bad in law & without jurisdiction, and hence

Success International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 51(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 7301/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasuccess International, Vs. Ito, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-51(4), Ca L-7A, )Lgf), South Extn, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxfs3915K

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

copy of approval u/s 151 available at page 3 of the paper book it was submitted that ld Pr. CIT has given mechanical approval without application of mind. As with regard to mechanical sanction of reopening he relied on the judgment PCIT Vs. NC Cable Ltd 391 ITR (Delhi

ACIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi vs. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5821/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

respondent assessee own case for AY 2003-04 in ITA No.l523/Dei/2014 in para 29 at page 29 has quashed the reassessment proceeding. 5. Mechanical approval u/s 151 of IT Act. Mere appending "Yes" by approving authority shows that the approval is mechanical without application of mind. The exercise ... decision of M/s Synfonia Tradelinks P Ltd vs ITO W.P.(C) No.12544/2018 dt: 26.03.2021 (Del) has quashed the reassessment proceeding based on mechanical approval granted by approving authority by appending expression “Approved”. Further reliance is placed in the decision of RMP Holdings P Ltd ITA No.7243/Del/2019 dt: 31.07.2020, Chhugamal Rajpal