9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in the assessment in issue. We also find that the tribunal s leading decision in case of PCIT vs. Shreelekha Damani [ 2015 (8) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI] stands affirmed in hon ble Bombay high court in [ 2018 (11) TMI 1563 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . We conclude in these facts and circumstances that the department has not proceeded to finalise the impugned assessment(s) in true light of the relevant mandatory provision sec. 153D of the Act mainly for the reason neither the Assessing Officer had sent anything more than the draft assessment order(s) nor the JCIT had an occasion to apply his mind to ensure the twin purpose of his statutory exercise (supra). We further make it clear that since the entire exercise was carried out from both the authorities end on the same date i.e. 28.03.2016 itself in absence all the corresponding records, the impugned approval does not satisfy the relevant parameters of law as settled in preceding case law. We therefore quash all the impugned assessment(s) framed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for this precise reason alone. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the following table. You are directed to pass finial order in these cases & served upon the assessee and send a copy of the said final order to this office for record purpose. Since o assessment records are sent by you along with your draft order(s), question of returning the same does not arise. Name of the assessee` PAN A/Yr. Assessed income (in Rs) Remarks Swapan Kumar Paul AEYPP1792J 08-09 21,04,770 1. Don't quote section 68 in case of addition under voluntary disclosure / undisclosed income. 2. Keep proper note as "note not for the assessee". 3. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)/271AAB is to be initiated after careful consideration. Keep proper note, i.e. your satisfaction for initiation of penalty quoting proper section under which penalty proceedings are initiated. Penalty notice is to be issued specifying proper section & served upon the assessee. 4.Sentence regarding approval u/s. 153D is to be mentioned in "note not for the assessee". 5. Return income must be mentioned in the body of the order. -do- …do… 09-10 21,48,280 …..do ….. ….do... …do…. 10-11 27,90,260 ….do…. … ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llip;.do... …do…. 14-15 12,98,56,202 ….do…. 4. Mr. Mody's next contention is that the JCIT herein has not applied his mind whilst approving the Assessing Officer's propos for framing sec. 153A assessment(s) in these two searched taxpayers cash. He quotes this tribunal's co-ordinate bench's decision in (2012) 137 ITD 94 (Pune) in Akil Gulamali Somji vs. ITO Ward-4(5), Pune that such an assessment without following the prescribed mandatory procedure in not valid. Learned coordinate bench's order to this effect reads as under:- "11. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below and material available on record. The relevant facts are that during the course of search and seizure action on 29.7.2003 at the business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized. Notice u/s. 153C was issued to the assessee and assessment u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144 have been framed for all the 4 A.Ys. under consideration. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessment orders were questioned both on legal issue and on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ec. 153D requirement is mandatory. No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactment shall be considered directory or Akil Gulamali Somji A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05 Page of 14 obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Banwarilal Agarwalla Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 849 (853); Razas Bulland Sugar Co.Ltd., Vs. Municipal Board, AIR 1965 (SC) 895 (899) & Others if object of the enactment will be benefited by holding the same directory, it will be construed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory, serious general inconvenience will be created to nascent persons without very much further object of enactment, the same will be construed as directory. But all these does not mean that language used is to be ignored, only that the prima facie inference of the intention of the legislature arising from the words used may be displaced by considering the nature of the enactment, its designed consequences flowing from alternative constructions. The wordings and language used in Sec. 153D of the Act and the heading "prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before the time barring date. Finally once such approval is granted, it must be in writing and filed in the relevant folder indicated above after making a due entry in the order-sheet. The assessment order can be passed only after the receipt of such approval. The fact that such approval has been obtained should also be mentioned in the body of the assessment order itself." Chapter XIVB also deals with assessment of search cases. Sections 153A, 153B & 153C have been introduced to Chapter XIV "procedure for Akil Gulamali Somji A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05 Page of 14 assessment" w.e.f. 1.6.2003 by the Finance Act 2003 whereas Sec. 153 D has been inserted to the Chapter w.e.f. 1.6.2007 by the Finance Act 2007. These provisions thus also deal with the assessment in case of search or requisition and when the assessment orders in the present case were passed the provisions laid down u/s. 153D were very much in operation. In the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 144B of the Act and, hence, without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was, therefore, justified in its conclusion that the assessment was liable to be annulled. It was right in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer the instant case without reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had rightly been annulled by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs." 14. In the case of CIT Vs. SPL's Siddharth Ltd. (Supra), before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the facts were that notice issued by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O u/s. 151(1) of the Act was required to take approval of the competent authority. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after discussing the issue in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a procedural irregularity not involving the question of jurisdiction Akil Gulamali Somji A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05 Page of 14 can be cured. It is not helpful to the revenue in the present case because in the present case, the A.O was having no jurisdiction to frame assessment order without prior approval of JCIT as necessary requirement to comply with u/s. 153D of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs.Damodhar Muralilal (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court did not approve the view of the Tribunal in holding that in view of Clause (b) of Sec. 251(1) of the Act, the first appellate authority had no power of remand and therefore, the procedural illegality would not be corrected by recourse to remanding the case to the ITO. Here in the present case, as we have already discussed, and also cited the recent decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ratnabai N.K. Dubhash (Mrs.) (Supra) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SPL's Siddharth Ltd. (Supra) that requirement u/s. 153D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here that the assessing authority had admittedly sent its letter seeking approval on 28.03.2016 which stood replied by way of alleged approval on the very date with certain remarks at the JCIT's behest (supra). This approval makes it clear that the Assessing Officer had not even sent the relevant records for the approving authority's appraisal of all the necessary facts. Tribunal's yet another decision in IT(SS)A No.01/CTK/2017 Geetarani Panda vs. ACIT decided on 05.07.2018 explains the ambit and scope of the instant mandatory requirement of sec. 153D approval as under:- 4. The common ground No.2 taken in both the appeals reads as under: 'That the assessment order passed u/s.153A(a) of the Act is not sustainable in view of the fact that the order of assessments were approved u/s.153D by the ACIT before competition of the assessment and, therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed 5. The CIT(A) disposed of this issue by observing as under: " That, the assessment order passed u/s 153A(a) of the Act is not sustainable in view of the fact that the order of assessment were approved u/s 153D by the Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax before completion of the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of "Smt. Shreelekha Dam ani Vs. Dy. CIT, (2015) 173 TTJ 332 (Mumbai)" it was held that, 'legislative intent is clear inasmuch as prior to the insertion of Sec.l53D, there was no provision for taking approval in cases of assessment and reassessment in cases where search has been conducted. Thus, the legislature wanted the assessments/reassessments of search and seizure cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authorities which also means that the superior authorities should apply their minds on the materials on the basis of which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authorities have to approve the assessment order". In the instant case, the ld Addl. CIT (As Claimed by the Ld. AO) has approved the order prior to the completion of the assessment from which it can be well concluded that, the Ld. Addl. CIT had not applied his mind to the materials on record and therefore, the assessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. On the above ground it is prayed before your honour to quash the assessment order. Decision:- The submission of the Ld. A.R. was refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section(1) of 153A except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income tax. He submitted that it will be observed from the assessment order dated 31.3.2015 passed u/s.153A(b) in the case of Geetarani Panda, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 24,67,700/-, whereas as per the approval letter of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bhubaneswar dated 27.3.2015, the income assessed at ₹ 1,31,960/- in the assessment year 2007-2008 and in order dated 31.3.2015 in the case of Smt. Manjusmta Dash, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 3,44,785/-, whereas as per the approval letter of the Addl. CIT, Range1, Bhubaneswar dated 27.3.2015, the income assessed at ₹ 1,31,000/- and, therefore, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were without the prior approval of the Additional CIT and hence, bad in law and liable to be annulled. He relied on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani vs DCIT, 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 332, wherein, it was held as under: "11.3 The Legislative intent i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interests of the revenue. The word "and" signifies conjunction and not disjunction. In other words, the twin conditions of "nature and complexity of the accounts" and "the interests of the revenue" are the prerequisites for exercise of power under section 142(2A) of the Act. Undoubtedly, the object behind enacting the said provision is to assist the Assessing Officer in framing a correct and proper assessment based on the accounts maintained by the assessee and when he finds the accounts of the assessee to be complex, in order to protect the interests of the revenue, recourse to the said provision can be had. The word "complexity" used in section 142(2A) is not defined or explained in the Act. As observed in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 634 1 (All.), it is a nebulous word. Its dictionary meaning is: "The state or quality of being intricate or complex or that is difficult to understand. However, all that is difficult to understand should not be regarded as complex. What is complex to one may be simple to another. It depends upon one's level of understanding or comprehension. Sometimes, what appears to be compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val must have before him the materials on the basis whereof an opinion had been formed. A prior approval can be granted only when the materials for appointment of the extraordinary procedure is required to be taken by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was required to place all materials before the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, as the case may be, to show that he intends to take recourse to the said provision having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the Revenue. No such materials had been placed before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. It further appears that even no previous approval was sought for but merely a proposal was placed for perusal of the Chief Commissioner of Incometax and for appointment of a special auditor. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, did not apply his mind at all as regards the prerequisite for grant of previous approval and mechanically appointed Sri G. P. Agarwal, as a special auditor. The said order depicts a total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer as also the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiny and application of mind. In the case of Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. (supra), the I.T.A.T Madras Bench 'A' has observed that the function to be performed by the Commissioner in granting previous approval requires an enquiry and judicial approach on the entire facts, materials and evidence. It has been further observed that in law where any act or function requires application of mind and judicial discretion or approach by any authority, it partakes and assumes the character and status of a judicial or at least quasijudicial act, particularly because their Act, function, is likely to affect the rights of affected persons." 11.10. Similarly, u/s. 151 of the Act it is provided that no notice shall be issued u/s. 148 unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The sanction under this section was considered by the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Amarlal Bajaj in ITA No. 611/M/2004 wherein at para-8, the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Bench in the case of United Electrical Co. 258 ITR 317 which read as under: " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Addl Commissioner/Joint Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposals put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. We are constrained to observe that in the present case, there has been no application of mind by the Addl. Commissioner before granting the approval. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment order made u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w. Sec. 153A of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be annulled. The additional ground of appeal is allowed. 13. The ld. Departmental Representative has strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Rafique Abdul Hamid Kokani Vs DCIT 113 Taxman 37, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Rishabchand Bhansali Vs DCIT 136 Taxman 579 and Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sakthivel Bankers Vs Asstt. Commissioner 124 Taxman 227. 13.1. We have carefully perused the decisions placed on record by the Ld. Dr. We find that all the decisions relied upon by the Ld. DR are misplaced inasmuch as all these decisions relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the approval so granted by him is not an approval which can be sustained. Accordingly, assessments in three COs and nineteen appeals of the assessee(s), on identical facts, are liable to be annulled as suffering from the incurable defect of the approval not being proper. Accordingly, we annul the assessment orders in CO Nos. 8 to 10/Jodh/2016 and ITA Nos. 325 to 331/Jodh/2016. Thus, all the three COs and the nineteen appeals of the assessee, as aforesaid, are allowed." 8. On the other hand, ld D.R. argued and submitted that on perusal of letter of Addl. Commissioner of Income tax dated 27.3.2015 in para 7, he has observed as under: "Smt. Geetarani Panda A.Y. 2007-08:- Broadly speaking, like the case of Smt. Manjusmita Dash, this also appears to be the case of capital building where the assessee has declared income of ₹ 87,200/- as misc. income, which is not verifiable and the entire receipts alongwith opening capital have been shown as cash in hand. A perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee shows an opening capital of ₹ 23,35,735/-, most of which is in cash. The capital as on 31st March, 2007 has been shown at ₹ 24,22,099/-, out which S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appraisal report, the appellate proceedings, audit inspection etc. are duly taken into account, and the enquiries and investigations that are required to be made are actually made before finalization of the assessment orders. It would have been much better and in the interest of Revenue, if you had submitted the draft orders atleast one month earlier so as to allow the undersigned sometime to go through and analyse the same vis-avis the appraisal report and seized records. It also goes without saying that you never cared even to discuss these cases with the undersigned for guidance and line of investigation to be taken. However, despite all this, I have gone through the material available on records and some of the observations, in respect of the following cases are given in subsequent paras." 12. Ld A.R. submitted that the reading of the same will show that there was no application of mind due to shortage of time by the Additional CIT granting approval to the draft assessment order by the Assessing Officer. 13. In reply to the same, ld D.R. submitted that the reading of para 7 of the order will show that the Addl. CIT has applied his mind and granted necessary approval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h section the Ld. Assessing prefer to call the A/R and handed over the orders on 08.04.2015. Again question arises if the orders were passed on 31.03.2015 why the orders were not sent to dispatch section or handed over to the appellant on the same day or in the immediate next day. But as a matter of fact the orders were never passed within the due date, they are back dated. Hence the assessment orders are barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. c. Further it is. submitted that, as claimed/dated (purported) the assessment order was passed on 31st march 2015, but it has not been dispatched/ sent for service within the limitation, a legal presumption arises that the order was not passed within the limitation and therefore, to rebut the legal presumption, and it is so because, the law in this respect is that the order should not look only to have been made within limitation, it should be out of reach of the authority making the assessment order within the limitation. For this finding the reliance may be placed on B.J.Shelat Vs. State of Gujrat; AIR 1978 SC1109. In this case the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "The order of any authority 'cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. A.R. was referred to the A.O. u/s.25 Act on 23.09.2016. In reply, the A.O. has given the following reply dt.17.10.2016:- "The Authorized Representative (A.R.) after being appointed by the assess-, act so are not only to plead or argue the case before the A.O. In order to act on behalf, the assessee A.R. a power of attorney (PoA) has been submitted at the out set of the case. That PoA authorizes the A.R. to take copies of the assessment orders. That PoA also authorizes the A.O. to get the assessment order(s) served on the assessee through his/her A.R. Being it a group case all assessment orders after the scrutiny proceedings being completed, have been served on the assessee through her A.R. on 08.04.2015and the receipt of the orders has been duly acknowledged by the A.R. also. The, scrutiny proceedings were completed by 31.03.20,15 and assessment orders have been served on 08.04.2015. No inordinate delay has happened. When the A.R. is ready to act in every respects [including applying for refund and receiving the refund vouchers] on behalf of the assessee through the PoA and as stated above the A.R. also did not object at the - instant to receive the assessment order serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot time barred as held in the case of Sewduttroy Rambullay & Sons Vrs. CIT (Cal) 204 ITR 580, CIT Vrs. T.O. Abraham & Co.) (Ker) 333 ITR 182. In similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee in case of CIT Vrs. Sophia Study Circle in ITA No.286/CTK/2012 for A.Y.2008-09 and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced, verbatim, hereunder:- We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, a perusal of the provisions of section 153 of the Act shows that the word used in the said section 'make'. Similarly, a perusal of the proviso to section 147 of the Act shows that the word used as 'no action shall be taken'. Similarly, in the provisions of section 148 of the Act, the words used are 'shall serve on the assessee'. Similarly, in the provisions of section 149 of the Act, the words used are Issue to the assessee'. Thus, each word used in each section has a different purpose and different meaning. 'Made' cannot be treated on the same footing as served. The fact that the word used is 'made' in section 153 shows that the assessment order should be made on or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttorney (PoA) has been submitted at the outset of the case. That PoA authorizes the A.R. to take copies of the assessment orders. That PoA also authorizes the A.O. to get the assessment order(s) served on the assessee through his/her A.R. Being it a group case all assessment orders after the scrutiny proceedings being completed, have been served on the assessee through her A.R. on 08.04.2015 and the receipt of the orders has been duly acknowledged by the A.R. also. The scrutiny proceedings were completed by 31.03.2015 and assessment orders have been served on 08,04.2015. No inordinate delay has happened. When the A.R. is ready to act in every respects [including applying for refund and receiving the refund vouchers] on behalf of the assessee through the PoA and as stated above the A.R. also did not object at the instant to receive the assessment order serving of assessment order (s) which resulted in demand by hand did not violate any rule." 17. On the above stated facts, his argument was that as the assessment order was passed on 31.3.2015 and the same was delivered by hand to the assessee on 8.4.2015, the same was barred by limitation and, therefore, liable to be annulled. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in absence of any material to show that the Assessing Officer revisited these orders after 30.12.2016 upheld the orders and drawn support from the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Binani Industries ltd., (2015) 59 taxmann.com 389 (Cal). 7. Before us, the assessee produced copy of envelope by which the orders of assessment were sent to the assessee by the Assessing Officer and copy of track record of Speed Post to show that the impugned orders of assessment were, in fact, dispatched by the Assessing Officer on 7.1.2017, though the orders were dated 30.12.2016. The assessee contended that as the orders were dispatched after 30.12.2016, therefore, the orders of assessment were barred by limitation. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. B J N Hotels Ld., (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336(Kar). 8. On the other hand, ld D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the CIT(A). 9. Ld D.R. could not explain when the orders were prepared on 30.12.2016 why it could not be dispatched on or before 31.12.2016. 10. We find that Section 153B(1)(a) reads as under: "153B (1) Notwithstanding anything contain in section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records, to prove that the order is issued within the prescribed period, order passed by AO is barred by limitation. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case." 13. To the same effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which are in the case of (i) K. Joseph Jacob vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer & another (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and (ii) Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker). 14. The Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal also held similarly in the case of Shanti Lal Godawat and Others vs. ACIT, reported in 126 TTJ (Jd) 135. 15. In view of above plethora of judicial precedents, in our considered opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of Binani Industries Ltd., (supra) will not deter us as it is a settled position of law that when two divergent views are expressed by two different Hon'ble High Courts, none of which are Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, then the view favourable to the assessee should be followed. For this, we derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uidance and line of investigation to be taken. However, despite all this, I have gone through the material available on records and some of the observations, in respect of the following cases are given in subsequent paras." 24. In our considered view, the provisions contained in Section 153D as enacted by the Parliament cannot be treated as an empty formality. The provision has certain purpose. It is apparent that the purpose behind the enactment of the above provision in the Statute by the Parliament are two folds. Firstly, the approval of the Senior Authority will ensure that the assessee is not prejudiced by the undue or irrelevant addition or assessment. Secondly, the approval by Senior Authority will also ensure that proper enquiry or investigation are carried out by the Assessing Authority. Thus, the above provision provides for mental application of a Senior Officer of the Department, which in turn, provides safeguard to both i.e. Revenue as well as the assessee. Therefore, this important provision laid down by the legislature cannot be treated as a mere empty formality. The same view was expressed by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Akil Gulamali Somji vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in Tax Appeal No.668 of 2016 decided on 27.11.2018. We conclude in these facts and circumstances that the department has not proceeded to finalise the impugned assessment(s) in true light of the relevant mandatory provision sec. 153D of the Act mainly for the reason neither the Assessing Officer had sent anything more than the draft assessment order(s) nor the JCIT had an occasion to apply his mind to ensure the twin purpose of his statutory exercise (supra). We further make it clear that since the entire exercise was carried out from both the authorities' end on the same date i.e. 28.03.2016 itself in absence all the corresponding records, the impugned approval does not satisfy the relevant parameters of law as settled in preceding case law. We therefore quash all the impugned assessment(s) framed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for this precise reason alone. All these Revenue's appeal(s) are declined whereas the assessees' appeal(s) / cross objections are allowed in foregoing terms. Ordered accordingly. 7. To sum up, these Revenue's appeal(s) are dismissed and assessees' appeals / cross-objections are allowed. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
