9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ignoring the accounts maintained by the assessee in Tally software available in the computer of the assessee. (iii) For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in his cross-objection are as follows: (i) For that the appeal is time barred. (ii) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that order of assessment is bad in law and unsustainable being passed in violation of section 153D of the Act. (iii) For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the order of assessment is bad in law as the jurisdiction in absence of any valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act having been served upon the cross-objector. (iv) For that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the arbitrarily made addition of Rs. 86,12,277/-. (v) For that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the arbitrarily made additions of Rs. 1,64,58,199/- and Rs. 67,25,694/- aggregating to Rs. 2,31,83,893/-. (vi) For that the cross-objector craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds of cross-objection and/or modify or resign any ground(s) of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 2014-15 pertains to 5wo assessees namely Sri Swapan Kumar Paul and Smt.Namita Paul involving the very search dated 23.08.2013 at their business and residential premises arise from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong's separate orders dated 26.03.2018 and 23.03.2018 (assessee-wise); respectively involving proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short 'the Act'. 2. It transpires at the outset that the first and foremost issue in assessees appeal(s) / cross objection(s) challenges correctness of validity of all the impugned assessments framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Agartala Circle for want of appropriate approval by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax-as required u/s 153D of the Act. We thus stake up this first and foremost legal issue for adjudication since going to root of the matter. 3. Learned counsel appearing assessee has reiterated the corresponding pleadings in the instant appeal(s) / cross objections that the impugned assessment have been framed without obtaining prior approval of the JCIT as required u/s 153D of the Act. Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj and Mr. Sandip Sengupta; Additional CIT and JCIT, represent the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Paul AGZPP8327N 08-09 1,61,60,303 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 09-10 2,57,33,242 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 10-11 5,33,53,150 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 11-12 1,15,49,771 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 12-13 1,54,87,038 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 13-14 2,43,6,7,030 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 14-15 6,19,675 ....do.... Rajarshi Motors Pvt Ltd. AACCR8033P 08-09 2,23,94,991 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 09-10 7,54,48,735 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 10-11 12,49,68,760 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 11-12 21,25,81,959 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 12-13 33,70,10,742 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 13-14 27,25,50,393 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 14-15 20,70,87,907 ....do.... Subhajit Paul AZNPP5539K 08-09 1,53,950 ...do... ....do... ...do.... 00-10 5,25,320 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 10-11 17,26,930 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 11-12 19,23,600 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 12-13 1,15,65,396 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 13-14 1,74,58,030 ....do.... ....do... ...do.... 14-15 1,44,89,296 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3D, talks about necessity of prior approval for framing assessment in case of search or requisition. We thus fully concur with the submission of the Ld. A.R. that provisions laid down u/s. 153D are very much applicable in case of assessment of income of any other person (i.e. the person other than the person searched). Now the issue for our adjudication is as to whether absence of obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, assessment made u/s. 153 C will make the assessment void or voidable/curable. For a ready reference, provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act are being reproduced hereunder: "153D. No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub- section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions u/s. 153D have been laid down under the heading "prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition". This heading itself suggests that obtaining prior app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waive the condition of obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax by the A.O for framing AkilGulamaliSomji A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05 Page of 14 assessment u/s. 153C/ 153A of the Act. Condition of prior approval of JCIT u/s. 153D has been put in public interest and not in the interest of a particular person. Thus it cannot be waived by particular person. The use of word "shall" raises a presumption that a particular provision is imperative but this prima facie inference may be reverted by other consideration such as object and scope of the enactment and consequence flowing from such construction. The revenue has not been able to rebut the above inference by pointing out other consideration like object and scope of the enactment and the consequence flowing from such construction before us. Clause 9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume II (Technical) February 2003 issued by Directorate of Income Tax on behalf of Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Government of India, reads as under: "9. Approval for assessment: An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/ADDL.CIT. (For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The function of the income-tax Officer to make the final assessment under section 144B(5) of the Act is more in the nature of a ministerial function because he can pass the order only in accordance with the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. He cannot vary ordepart from the directions given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Moreover, the requirements of section 144B of the Act re mandatory. The Income-tax Officer has no option but to follow the same. He cannot make the final order on the basis of the draft order without forwarding the same to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner along with the objections and without obtaining the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. An assessment made by the Income-tax Officer in violation of the provisions of section 144B of the Act would be an assessment without jurisdiction. In the instant case, the admitted position is that on receipt of the draft AkilGulamaliSomji A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05 Page of 14 order of assessment, the assessee did file objections and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment himself on the basis of the draft order wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon' ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardarilal Hasim (Supra), the issue was regarding applicability of prescribed limitation u/s. 275 in a penalty order passed after the case is remanded by an appellate authority. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that the limitation prescribed u/s. 275 of the Act is not applicable to the penalty order passed after the case is remanded by an appellate Authority. In the case of Gayatri Textiles Vs. CIT (Supra) non-obtaining of prior approval of I.A.C u/s. 271(1)(c) (iii) for direction for payment of penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited decision is not applicable in the present case. In the case of CIT Vs. Sara Enterprises (Supra), the issue was as to whether the bar of limitation contained u/s. 275 of the Act would attenuate or curtail the powers of CIT, vested in him u/s. 263 of the said Act. The Hon'ble Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute that the Assessing Officer herein had in fact asked for the JCIT's approval u/s. 153D of the Act before framing all the impugned assessment(s). The sole question our apt adjudications whether the said approval dated 28.03.2016 satisfies the relevant parameters settled by various judicial precedents or not. Mr. Mody at this stage invites our attention to clause 9 of Manual of Office Procedure, Volume-II (Technical), February 2003 issued by the Directorate of Income Tax on behalf of Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Government of India dealing with the instant issue of approval to be finalized in a particular manner (supra). He emphasizes that the ACIT as well as the JCIT's action under challenge does not comply the prescribed procedure therein. We find no merit in the instant argument since such a Manual of Office Procedure is for mere internal circulation which not pertaking the character of CBDT's instructions prescribed u/s 119 of the Act. Nor is there any material to suggest that this manual confirms all necessary conditions in the clinching statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id ab initio and liable to be quashed. b. Further it is submitted that, as per the provisions of section 153D the Act, every assessment or reassessment order is to be passed not below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. That means if an order is not passed by the Joint Commissioner then that order is to be approved by the Joint Commissioner. Here the meaning of approval is not simple approval or approval of the order in the mechanical manner. The Joint Commissioner must have to go through the seized documents, notices issued by the Assessing Officer, submissions made by the assessee and also the documents submitted by the assessee, then he had to apply his judicious mind to all the relevant records and then only the orders can be approved. In the instant case the last notices u/s 142(1) was issued on 30.03.2015 to which the submissions were made on 31.03.2015 and as mentioned in the assessment order the orders were approved on 27.03.2015. So, it is not known on 27.03.2015, how the Ld. Addl. CIT has applied his mind to the notices issued on 30.03.2015 and the submission made by the appellant on 31.03.2015. As a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the letter has been placed record. On perusal of the approval letter, it is clearly evident that the Addl. C7 asked the A.O. to verify opening balance with evidence failing which the opening balance may be added to the total income. Therefore, the A.O. issued the alleged notice u/s. 142(1) asking the appellant to prove the same with evidence. The counsel of the appellant appeared in response to the notice, but produced no evidence and hence, the alleged addition to the total income was made. In view of the above, it is held that there is no strength in the argument of the Ld. A.R. alleging violation of provisions of sec. 153 D of the Act and hence, the ground of appeal is rejected. " 6. At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee argued that search was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 13.12.2012. The assessment order under section 153A(b) of the Act was passed on 31.3.2015. The approval was obtained from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bhubaneswar on 27.3.2015 and filed copy of the same. Notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued on 30.3.2015 and referred to pages 15 & 16 of paper book, where copy of the same is placed. On the above stated fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, nominated by the Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the Assessing Officer may require." In this section also the AO may direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an Accountant with the previous approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. This provision has been elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Vs CIT 169 Taxman 328 wherein at para-6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "A bare perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2A) of the Act would show that the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer, casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see to it that the requirement of the previous approval, envisaged in the section is not turned into an empty ritual. Needless to emphasise that before granting approval, the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, must have before him the material on the basis whereof an opinion in this behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer. The approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case." 11.5 Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 11.6 Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us. "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanced to the effect that by making such a nomination, appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was thoroughly scrutinized by the Tribunal Madras Bench in the case of Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. Vs DCIT 67 ITD 573, at para-41 of its order the observations of the Tribunal are as under: "In these cases, the Commissioner has passed an order granting approval under section 158BG of the Act through a single order passed on 31-3-1997 without giving any reason whatsoever. As we have recorded elsewhere above, the draft assessment orders of the block period in all these cases were made on 31-3-1997 and on the very same day, i.e., on 31-3-1997 the Commissioner grants approval and that too without giving or recording any reasons whatsoever. The approval order does not disclose the points which were considered by the Commissioner and the reasons for accepting them. In our view, this is totally an unsatisfactory method of granting approval in exercise of judicial power vested in the Commissioner. 11.9. This decision of the Tribunal was considered by Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Verma Roadways Vs ACIT 75 ITD 183 wherein also the assessee- appellant has challenged the validity of approval to the assessment order accorded by the CIT Kanpur. The Tribunal at Para-47 has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of section 151 of the Act as the action under section 147 was being initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The power vested in the Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. 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 Additional Commissioner before granting the approval". 12. Coming to the facts of the case in hand in the light of the analytical discussion hereinabove and as mentioned elsewhere, the Addl. Commissioner has showed his inability to analyze the issues of draft order on merit clearly stating that no much time is left, inasmuch as the draft order was placed before him on 31.12.2010 and the approval was granted on the very same day. Considering the factual matrix of the approval letter, we have no hesitation to hold that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner is devoid of any application of mind, is mech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt orders. Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and Tribunal Allahabad Bench in their orders, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, have laid down that the power to grant approval is not to be exercised casually and in routine manner and further the concerned authority, while granting approval, is expected to examine the entire material before approving the assessment order. It has also been laid down that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any authority, such authority is legally required to discharge the obligation by application of mind. In all the cases before us, the Department could not demonstrate, by cogent evidence, that the Jt. CIT had adequate time with him so as to grant approval after duly examining the material prior to approving the assessment order. The circumstances indicate that this exercise was carried out by the Jt. CIT in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Accordingly, respectfully following the ratio of the Co-ordinate Benches of Mumbai and Allahabad as aforementioned and also applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT (supra), we hold that the Jt. CIT has failed to gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Assessing Officer is not approved by the Additional CIT in view of the provisions of section 153D of the Act. 10. He further argued and submitted that the case laws relied upon by ld A.R. of the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee as in those cases, the approval was granted by the Jt. CIT on the very day of receipt of the draft order from the Assessing Officer, which is not the case at hand, wherein, the draft orders were received by the Jt. CIT four days prior to the grant of approval. 11. In the rejoinder, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that a reading of the first, second and third paras of the Addl. CIT of his letter dated 27.3.2015 read as under: "Despite a reminder given on 19th March, 2015 to submit the time barring draft assessment orders for approval u/s. 153D on or before 23.03.2015, the draft orders in M/s. Neelachal Carbo Metalicks Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases has been received in this office only on till 26th March, 2015 in the afternoon. The draft orders having being submitted only 5 days before final orders are getting barred by limitation,, I have no other option but to accord the approval to the same as the approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the Act after getting of the documents, submissions etc the ld Assessing Officer applied his judicious mind and then prepare the draft order which were sent to the Ld. Addl. CIT who had gone through the seized materials/documents, notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer, documents and submissions submitted by the appellant and after being satisfied with all these, he had given the approval of the orders and only thereafter the final order came out and uploaded by the Ld. 'Assessing Officer. Humanly all these activities are not possible within one day. Moreover from the system, it can be verified that, the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer were not uploaded which again prove that, the assessment orders were not passed within the due date, otherwise what prevented him to upload the assessment orders. So it is clear that the order were never been passed on 31.03.2015, rather it had been passed after the expiry of the due date and back dated. Therefore the assessment orders are barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. b. Further it is submitted that, as per the provisions of the Act, once the assessment orders are passed they should be imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax and Others Vs. B J N Hotels Ltd. (2016), 382 ITR 110 (Kar)" it was held that, to make an order effective the revenue has to dispatch the order within the due date, i.e. in the instant case it should be dispatched on or before 31.03.2015 which had not been done. Therefore the orders are barred by limitation. f. Further, it is submitted that, the assessment order was served on the appellant by hand on 8th of April, 2015 which also proves that the order was never dispatched or 'sent by any other specified mode. Therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Similar view was also expressed in the following ratios: SHANTI LAL GOD AW AT & ORS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2009) 126 TTJ (Jd) 135 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PURSHOTTAMDAS T. PATEL, (1994) 120 CTR (Cuj) 332 : (1994) 209 ITR 52 (Guj) JIFFIR AND KAREEM Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR., (1999) 240 ITR 587 (Ker) On the above ground it is submitted that, the assessment order passed by the Ld AO is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed." Decision:- Submission made by the Ld. A.R. was considered carefully with reference to material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iar Vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 79 (Mad.) approved in CIT Vs. Balkrishna Malhotra (1972) 81 ITR 759 (SC), EsthuriAswathiah Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 764 (Mys.), Badri Prasad Bajoria Vs. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 362 (Cal.) etc.] or that the notice of the demand should also be served on the assessee within that period. [Also relied on Sushil Chandra Ghose Vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 379 (Cal.) CAgIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187, 188 (Ker.) etc.]. What is required for completion of the assessment is the determination of the tax liability and issue of demand notice, but certainly not the -service of the same on the assessee. [India Ferro Alloy Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 671, 677 (Cal.), N. Subha Rao 48 ITR 808 (Mys.)]. In the case of EsthuriAswathiah Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 764 (Mys.), the order under section 143(3) dated 29-02-1961 was served to the assessee on 04-04-1961. The Hon'ble High Court Mysore treated the order as valid. In the case of Ramanand Agrawal Vs. CIT 151 ITR 216 (Gua.), the order u/s 143(3) dated 16-03-1968 was served on 13-04-1968 and the Hon'ble Guahati High Court held the order as valid. Order sheet entry passed by the A.O. states that assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sustainable in law as under the provisions of the Genera/ Clauses Act government document cannot be questioned unless and until substantial evidence has been produced to dislodge the veracity of the same. Under these circumstances, s it is noticed that the assessment order is dt. 31.12.2010 and as no evidence has been produced to show or to prove the allegation that the order was back dated, the technical ground raise by the assessee stands rejected." In view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, it is found that there is no inordinate delay in service of the order and therefore, the ground of appeal filed by the appellant is not acceptable and hence, it is rejected." 16. Ld A.R referring to page 16 of the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Geetarani Panda and page 15 of the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Manjusmita Dash submitted that the CIT(A) has called for a remand report u/s.250(4) of the Act dated 23.9.2016 and in reply to the same, the Assessing Officer has submitted his report vide letter dated 17.10.2016, which reads as under: "The Authorized Representative (A.R.) after being appointed by the assessee to act so are not only to plead or ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of assessment is barred in law. 20. We find force in both the above legal issues raised by the assessee for the reason discussed hereunder. 21. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that though the impugned order of assessment is dated 31.3.2015 was issued and served manually only on 8.4.2015 on the Authorised Representative of the assessee. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nidan vs ACIT, (2018) 53 CCH 0046 (Cuttack Tribunal) has held as under: "4. In all the above seven appeals, the assessee raised a legal ground which is that the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer are barred by limitation. 5. The facts relating to this issue are that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of the assessee on 28.5.2014. In pursuance to the said search, order u/s.153A r.w.s 144 of the Act was passed for the assessment years 2009-2010 to 2014-15 and assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 was made u/s.144 of the Act. The said orders of assessment were served upon the assessee on 9.1.2017 though all the orders were dated 30.12.2016. 6. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the aforesaid orders being dispatched on 7.1.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed opinion, to become a legal valid order of assessment, its communication must be within a period of limitation prescribed by the law though the communication may end after the prescribed period of limitation. Our above view derives support from the decision of Hon'ble Karnakata High Court in the case of B J N Hotels Ltd (supra), wherein, it has been held as under: " That the revenue is neither able to point out from the records that the assessment orders were dispatched on 27.4.2007 nor produced the dispatch register to establish that the orders were complete and effective i.e. it was issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned within the period of limitation i.e. 29.4.2007. Admittedly, the assessment orders were served on the assessee on 30.4.2007. hence, the assessment orders passed were barred by limitation." In the above decision, Hon'ble High Court follows its one earlier decision and has stated as under: "An identical issue was before this Court in ITA No.832/2008 (D.D. 14.10.2014 in the case of Maharaja Shopping Complex vs DCIT. This court following the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood works vs State of Kerala (1988) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproval letter dated 27.3.2015 of the Addl. CIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar reads as under: "Despite a reminder given on 19th March, 2015 to submit the time barring draft assessment orders for approval u/s.153D on or before 23.03.2015, the draft orders in M/s. Neelachal Carbo Metalicks Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases has been received in this office only on till 26th March, 2015 in the afternoon. The draft orders having being submitted only 5 days before final orders are getting barred by limitation, I have no other option but to accord the approval to the same as the approval is statutorily required u/s. 153D, even though there is no time left for undersigned to ensure that all the points raised in 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 at least one month earlier so as to allow the undersigned sometime to go through and analyse the same vis-a-vis the appraisal report and seized records. It also goes wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... communicated his findings of the further enquiry to the Supervisory Authority and not taken the approval of justification of his findings. Thus, in our considered opinion, alleged approval letter dated 27.3.2015 of the Addl. CIT, Range1, Bhubaneswar does not constitute the approval which is envisaged by the provisions of section 153D of the Act. Thus, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of AkilGulamaliSomji (supra), we hold that the impugned order of assessment is void and bad in law. Therefore, the impugned order of assessment is hereby cancelled and Ground No.2 and Ground No.4 of appeal in case of both the assessees are allowed." 7. Learned co-ordinate bench has taken into consideration the settled legal position on the very issue of sec. 153D approval in light of earlier provision sec. 158BG vis-a-vis sec. 153D (supra) to conclude that the JCIT is not to accord a mere mechanical approval but he has to apply his mind in order to ensure that the assessing authority conducts appropriate enquiry and investigation. And also that there is no undue or irrelevant addition made in the assessment in issue. We also find that the tribunal's leading decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
