9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 537 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment framed u/s 153A - invalid approval u/s 153D - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the Ld. ACIT accorded the approval u/s 153D of the Act on the very same day of the office letter written by the A.O./DCIT central Circle Ghaziabad and also considering the fact that consolidated single approval has been granted for different Assessment Years by following the ratio laid down in the case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (7) TMI 1562 - ITAT DELHI we allow the Ground challenging the assessment order which was framed based on the invalid approval accorded u/s 153D. Assessee appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2019-20, initiated under section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid given the approval under section 153D was allegedly granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework revolves around section 153D of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that the Assessing Officer (AO) must obtain prior approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) before passing an assessment order under section 153A or 153C. This approval process is considered a quasi-judicial function requiring the JCIT to apply their mind judiciously. The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and the case of PCIT vs. Anju Bansal, which emphasize the necessity of due application of mind by the approving authority under section 153D. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the ACIT was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. The approval was accorded on the same day as the draft assessment order was submitted, which raised doubts about the thoroughness of the review process. The Tribunal highlighted that such an approval process should involve a detailed examination of seized documents, questionnaires, and responses from the assessee, which was not evident in this case. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal noted that the approval was granted on the same day for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner. This indicated a lack of individual assessment and consideration for each year, which is contrary to the requirement of section 153D for independent and judicious application of mind. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the principles established in previous judgments, which require the JCIT to independently verify and apply their mind to the draft assessment orders. The Tribunal concluded that the ACIT's approval did not meet these standards, rendering the subsequent assessment orders void ab initio. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Assessee argued that the approval was invalid due to its mechanical nature, lacking due application of mind. The Department contended that the ACIT was involved throughout the assessment process, which justified the quick approval. However, the Tribunal found that the statutory requirement for independent application of mind was not fulfilled, regardless of the ACIT's involvement in earlier stages. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the approval under section 153D was invalid due to the lack of due application of mind, resulting in the quashing of the assessment orders for the relevant years. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Tribunal quoted the decision in SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that "the approval granting proceedings by the ld. JCIT is a quasi-judicial proceeding requiring application of mind by the ld. JCIT judiciously." Core Principles Established The judgment reinforces the principle that approvals under section 153D must involve a thorough and independent application of mind by the approving authority. Mechanical approvals without detailed consideration are insufficient and render the resultant assessment orders invalid. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2019-20, as they were based on invalid approvals under section 153D. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
|
