9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1140 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assesment u/s 153A - validity of approval of the draft assessment order u/s 153D - HELD THAT - Since, the Assessing Officer has sought approval u/s 153D of the Act in the case of assessee from Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2011-12, therefore, in view of our order 2022 (3) TMI 643 - ITAT DELHI in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 reproduced above, we hold that the assessment orders are vitiated for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the Act and as such no addition could be made against the assessee. We, therefore, quash the assessment orders passed u/s 153A of the Act for both the years, resultantly, all additions are deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Admittance of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A 2. Deletion of Additions by CIT(A) 3. Validity of Approval under Section 153D Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admittance of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A, arguing that the assessee failed to meet the conditions laid down in the rule. The Tribunal considered the arguments and referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sawhney vs Pr. CIT, which held that an assessee can urge any ground by oral application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision does not mandate a written application and that the respondent can support the order on any grounds decided against him. 2. Deletion of Additions by CIT(A): The CIT(A) had deleted several additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. These included: - Unexplained sources of addition to capital under Section 69. - Unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68. - Deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). - Non-disclosure of receipts from cooperative housing societies. - Concealed interest income. - Disallowance for personal use of a car. The Revenue argued that these deletions were erroneous. However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate these grounds on merit because the assessee succeeded on the legal ground regarding the validity of the approval under Section 153D, rendering the other grounds academic. 3. Validity of Approval under Section 153D: The Tribunal focused on the validity of the approval given by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) under Section 153D. The assessee argued that the approval was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in the case of Sanjay Duggal vs ACIT, where it was held that the approval under Section 153D must be based on a thorough examination of the material and not be a mere formality. The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT had approved multiple cases on the same day, which indicated a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Addl. CIT granted approval without verifying the records, which rendered the approval invalid and the assessment orders void. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for both the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, holding that the assessments were vitiated for want of valid approvals under Section 153D. Consequently, all additions made by the AO were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.
|
