2020 (2) TMI 320 - AT - Income Tax

Invalid approval obtained u/s 153D for assessment u/s 153A - Approval from Addl. CIT of the Range - HELD THAT - Approval given by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax shows that approval to the draft assessment order u/s 153D is granted in case of the assessee, Shri Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra along with 8 other assessee without perusing the draft assessment order in this case. Because when assessment proceedings were going on 27.12.2010 before the AO then it is beyond comprehension that as to how the draft assessment order has been placed before the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax on 24.12.2010. It goes to prove that approval has been given contrary to the provisions of section 153D. To controvert this factual position, ld. DR has not brought on record or argued any new facts. So, when mandatory approval u/s 153D is not there, entire assessment made by the AO u/s 153A/143(3) is not sustainable as it is no approval in the eyes of law, hence rightly quashed by the ld. CIT (A). So, without going into the merits of the other grounds raised by the Revenue which have otherwise become academic and as such not been argued in the face of the fact that the assessment order is not sustainable on ground of invalid/no approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act. - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of approval obtained under section 153D of the I.T. Act.
2. Timeliness of notice served under section 143(2).
3. Deletion of addition of ?5 crore under section 68 regarding creditworthiness.
4. Deletion of addition of ?3.5 crore surrendered under section 132(4) and subsequently retracted.
5. Deletion of addition of ?80,47,690/- on account of bogus purchases.
6. Deletion of addition of ?7,00,000/- related to an agreement with MPPL.
7. Observations regarding enquiries under section 133(6) for advance receipt of ?7,00,000/-.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Approval Obtained Under Section 153D:
The Tribunal scrutinized the approval obtained under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The assessment order indicated that the approval was obtained on 24.12.2010. However, the sequence of events showed ongoing investigations and actions by the AO up to 27.12.2010, which included issuing summons and receiving responses. This discrepancy suggested that the approval dated 24.12.2010 was anti-dated and a sham, lacking proper application of mind by the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that this invalid approval rendered the entire assessment proceedings null and void, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment.

2. Timeliness of Notice Served Under Section 143(2):
The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the timeliness of the notice under section 143(2), as the primary issue of invalid approval under section 153D was sufficient to nullify the assessment order. Therefore, the arguments related to the timeliness of the notice became academic and were not further addressed.

3. Deletion of Addition of ?5 Crore Under Section 68:
The AO had added ?5 crore to the assessee's income under section 68, citing the lack of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Smt. Abha Bansal. Despite the assessee's efforts to provide details and PAN, the AO found inconsistencies and non-cooperation from Smt. Abha Bansal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition based on the invalid approval under section 153D, making further examination of this issue unnecessary.

4. Deletion of Addition of ?3.5 Crore Surrendered Under Section 132(4):
The AO had added ?3.5 crore based on a surrender during a search under section 132(4), which the assessee later retracted. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the invalid approval under section 153D already nullified the assessment order. Thus, the deletion by the CIT(A) remained upheld without further analysis.

5. Deletion of Addition of ?80,47,690/- on Account of Bogus Purchases:
The AO had added ?80,47,690/- for alleged bogus purchases from M/s Rash Textiles. The Tribunal did not explore this issue in detail, as the invalid approval under section 153D sufficed to invalidate the entire assessment. Consequently, the deletion by the CIT(A) was sustained without further discussion.

6. Deletion of Addition of ?7,00,000/- Related to Agreement with MPPL:
The AO had added ?7,00,000/- received in cash from M/s Mevron Projects (P) Ltd. The Tribunal did not specifically analyze this issue, as the invalid approval under section 153D rendered the entire assessment void. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition stood without further scrutiny.

7. Observations Regarding Enquiries Under Section 133(6):
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had observed errors in the AO's enquiries under section 133(6) regarding the advance of ?7,00,000/-. However, since the primary issue of invalid approval under section 153D was sufficient to nullify the assessment, this observation did not require further examination.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the legal ground of invalid approval under section 153D, rendering the entire assessment order unsustainable. Consequently, the deletions and decisions by the CIT(A) on various additions were upheld without delving into their merits. The order was pronounced on 31st January 2020.

← Previous Next →