9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have never been issued, which clearly explains any communication without DIN is invalid in the eye of law. Thus, we find approval u/s. 153D of the Act is covered by para 2 of Circular No. 19/2019. Therefore, in the present case non-mentioning of DIN on approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act by the Addl. CIT renders the assessment order dated 30-09-2021 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act invalid treating the same deemed to have never been issued. Thus we note that approval u/s. 153D of the Act is akin to the approval u/s. 151 of the Act, wherein, we find sanction/approval u/s. 151 required from prescribed authority to initiate issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, likewise, in order to proceed with the assessment u/s. 153A, AO required to take approval u/s. 153D of the Act, which in our opinion, is a statutory requirement, falling under the ambit of Circular No. 19/2019 to generate DIN. Therefore, we hold non-mentioning of DIN on approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act vitiate the final assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Non-application of mind by the approving authority - The approval u/s. 153D is a mandatory requirement and such approval is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mrs. Ratnabai N.K. Dubhash [ 1997 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is applicable to the facts on hand and thereby, the final assessment order dated 30-09-2021 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s 144 of the Act is liable to be quashed. Assessee appeal allowed. - SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Vijay Mehta Sneha M. Padhiar For the Respondent : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Abdhesh Kumar ORDER PER BENCH : All these eight appeals by the assessee and Revenue against the common order dated 24-02-2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [ CIT(A) ] for above mentioned assessment years. 2. We find that these appeals were filed with a delay of 03 days. The assessee filed an application dated 15-05-2023 along with notarized affidavit dated 15-05-2023 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same and hearing both the parties, we note that the assessee mainly contended that he was travelling from 14-04-2023 to 27-04-2023 and due to which he could not give signature on the appeal memo, in support of which en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , firstly, that the approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act does not contain Document Identification Number (for short DIN ) which is in contravention to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14-08-2019 and, secondly, approval u/s. 153D of the Act granted by the Addl. CIT without application of mind. 8. The ld. AR drew our attention to Circular No. 19/2019 at page 92 of the paper book, argued that no communication shall be issued after 01-10-2019 unless a computer generated DIN is allotted and duly reflected in the body of communication. He vehemently argued the purpose and intention for the said circular is to have proper audit trail of all the communications relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. He submits that the said circular is very much applicable to the facts on hand as the approval stated to have been taken by the AO from Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Pune on 30-09- 2021 at page No. 85 of the paper book-I does not contain DIN. Further, he submits that the CBDT Circular specifically mentioned approvals which includes statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act and the final assessment made in the present case is bad in law and void- ab-initio. 11. The ld. CIT-DR, Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari drew our attention to ITBA module in central charge and its functionality for movement of internal files or orders for approval by the competent authority. He submits that the tabs for approval u/s. 153D of the Act are available relevant to assessment proceedings u/s. 153A/153C of the Act. He vehemently argued that the assessment order is sent for approval through online mode by clicking on the radio button labeled as submit for approval u/s. 153D of the Act or can also be sent manually. Consequent to the approval by the Addl. CIT a noting in the case history notings of the work item is displayed but no separate approval letter is generated. No diversion from the same is possible and no alterations or changes can be effected by the AO as the process is already determined and setting ITBA applications. 12. He submits that there are two scenarios available for movement of internal files or orders for approval by the competent authority for orders passed in ITBA module by central charges, one is to take manual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid section. 14. In rebuttal, the ld. AR, Shri Vijay Mehta submits that Circular No. 19/2019 does not distinguish, that it is applicable only to external communications and not to internal communications. He argued any such distinction of internal and external communication is missing and clearly demonstrates that both the internal and external are within the ambit of said circular. Further, the said circular clearly refers approval, indication of which, that all the approvals are covered by the said circular including the approval u/s. 153D of the Act. He argued that the approval to be taken from the concerned competent authority is a statutory approval required u/s. 153D of the Act which is part of the assessment proceedings and prayed to reject the arguments of ld. DR. 15. Secondly, regarding non application of mind by the approving authority, the ld. AR submits, that the AO forwarded draft assessment orders on 30-09-2021, approval was granted on 30-09-2021 by the Addl. CIT and the final assessment order was also passed on the same day by the AO on the same day i.e. 30-09-2021. The ld. AR vehemently argued that, is clearly evident that the Addl. CIT granted approval mechan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014-15 and argued that the AO mentioned clearly that there was multiple repetition of amounts mentioned under direct revenue expenses and additions were made without quantifying the actual amount. Further, the AO also denied set off of brought forward losses of demerged company inspite of having the assessee s submissions and drew our attention to para 7.6 of the draft assessment order. Further, the AO did not serve computation sheet determining the taxability for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2020-21 on the date of assessment and it was forwarded through e-mail only on 07-10-2021 which clearly demonstrates difference as per the computation sheet and demand u/s. 156 of the Act is Rs. 9,65,15,083/- and Rs. 9,68,69,836/-, respectively. The ld. AR argued that the approving authority Addl. CIT has to verify everything in detail while giving approval u/s. 153D of the Act relating to section 153A of the Act assessments and no such verification has been done as the approval, draft assessment order and final assessment order was passed on the same day i.e. on 30-09-2021 which clearly shows non application of mind. 18. Regarding discrepancies between the demand notice and computation of income, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered them before granting approval u/s. 153D of the Act. 21. Next issue, the ld. AR submits that the final assessment order dated 30-09-2021 passed for A.Y. 2014-15 is without approval as draft assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT was subsequently altered by the AO at the time of passing final assessment order. He submits that it was observed from the inspection as afforded by this Tribunal, that the draft assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15 forwarded by the AO to Addl. CIT on 30-09-2021 which was approved by the Addl. CIT on the same day i.e. 30-09-2021 was different than the final assessment order passed by the AO on 30-09-2021. He drew our attention to the chart showing instances of difference between draft assessment orders and final assessment orders which is on record. He argued that the final assessment order is materially changed for all the assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2019-20, which clearly indicates that the draft assessment order was altered after receiving approval from the Addl. CIT. He vehemently contended that altered final assessment order is in violation of principle that the draft assessment order on which approval is received cannot be cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reflecting or quoted in the body of such approval. Further, vide para 5 of such approval clearly shows that the said approval may also be taken on ITBA portal, which establishes that the said Circular No. 19/2019 is applicable to approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act. Further, para 3 of the said circular, curves out certain exceptions to para 2 by providing that under certain exceptional circumstances, which were enumerated in clause (i) to (v), the communication may be issued without a DIN but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with the prior written approval of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax. Further, in such exceptional circumstances, the orders/communications issued without a DIN must state this fact in specific format set out there in the circular. As discussed above, in spite of direction from the Addl. CIT vide para 5 to take approval on ITBA portal, no DIN was generated in the ITBA platform. Further, no exceptional circumstances claimed nor brought to our notice in not generating the DIN in pursuance of para 3 of the said circular. The ld. DR vehemently contended that there was no requirement of law and guidance of the CBDT for genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord approval/sanction granted under Section 151 dated 31.3.2021 which contains similar DIN Number as is mentioned in screen shot of ITBA web portal placed on record. Petitioners have also annexed approval/sanction granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 as Annexure P-6 to writ petition. DIN Number is mentioned in Annexure P-6. Nothing has been brought on record by petitioners to show that any objection was raised by them to the effect that DIN number is incorrect or it was not generated on 31.3.2021, except raising objection before this Court with respect to manner in which sanction/ approval is granted, as is appearing in sanction order. In view of aforementioned facts of case, submission of learned counsel for petitioners that notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is issued without there being any sanction/approval from the competent authority is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 27. On careful reading of the above finding of the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, it is noted that the assessee therein agitated that there was no proper sanction/approval u/s. 151 of the Act on the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The respondent-revenue ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 30. In the light of the above, we note that approval u/s. 153D of the Act is akin to the approval u/s. 151 of the Act, wherein, we find sanction/approval u/s. 151 required from prescribed authority to initiate issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, likewise, in order to proceed with the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer required to take approval u/s. 153D of the Act, which in our opinion, is a statutory requirement, falling under the ambit of Circular No. 19/2019 to generate DIN. Therefore, we hold non-mentioning of DIN on approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act vitiate the final assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 31. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ashok Commercial Enterprises reported TS-506-SC-2023 (Bom.), was pleased to hold the satisfaction note will fall within the scope of para 2 of Circular No. 19/2019. The relevant part is reproduce here-in-below for ready reference : 18 Whether the impugned assessment order dated 28th September 2021 is invalid on account of it being issued without a DIN? (a) The CBDT, in exercise of powers under Section 119(1) of the Act, has issued a Circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; or (iv) when PAN of assessee is not available and where a proceeding under the Act (other than verification under section 131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) when the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of income-tax. In cases where manual communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration, the proposal seeking approval for issuance of manual communication shall include the reason for delay in PAN migration. The communication issued under aforesaid circumstances shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of Income-tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- . This communication issues manually without a DIN on account of reason/reasons given in para3(i)/3(ii)/3(iii)/3(iv)/3(v) of the CBDT Circular No . dated (strike off those which are not applicable) and with the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 2019-2020 ought to be treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued. We find support for this view in Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (Supra) where the Hon ble Delhi High Court has held that an order passed in contravention of the said Circular is void, bad in law and of no legal effect. Paragraphs 16 to 17.1, 18 and 19 read as under : 16. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15.10.2019, under Section 147/144(C) (13/143(3) of the Act. Concededly, the final assessment order does not bear a DIN. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant/revenue took steps to demonstrate before the Tribunal that there were exceptional circumstances, as referred to in paragraph 3 of the 2019 Circular, which would sustain the communication of the final assessment order manually, albeit, without DIN. 16.1. Given this situation, clearly paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular would apply. 17. Paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular, as extracted hereinabove, decidedly provides that any communication which is not in conformity with paragraph 2 and 3 shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. The phraseology of par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten approval of the higher authorities under the Act. Therefore, the satisfaction note dated 13 th July 2021 and the impugned order of assessment dated 28 th September 2021 ought to be treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued; (f) On this ground, rule ought to be made absolute in the following petitions : A.Y. 2011-2012 - WP No.2593 of 2021 A.Y. 2012-2013 - WP No.2598 of 2021 A.Y. 2013-2014 - WP No.2847 of 2021 A.Y. 2014-2015 - WP No.2597 of 2021 A.Y. 2015-2016 - WP No.2594 of 2021 A.Y. 2016-2017 - WP No.2588 of 2021 A.Y. 2017-2018 - WP No.2595 of 2021 A.Y. 2018-2019 - WP No.2625 of 2021 A.Y. 2019-2020 - WP No.2696 of 2021 32. On careful reading of the above decision, we note that the assessee therein challenged notices issued u/s. 153 of the Act and also assessment orders passed pursuant thereto under writ proceedings, is invalid for non- mentioning of DIN. The main challenge was that the satisfaction note dated 13-07-2021 bears no DIN and the impugned assessment order dated 28-09-2021 does not bear a DIN. Regarding non-mentioning of DIN on satisfaction note, it was contended that the covering letter alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of approval was not provided with the reasons recorded. In this regard, it is informed that the approvals taken from higher authorities are internal matter of the department for communication hence, the same cannot be provided. Further, the assessee has cited case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in support of his claim. It is hereby clarified that the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not binding on the undersigned. However, if the assessee has case laws of jurisdictional High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same may be communicated accordingly. Therefore, the above ground of the assessee is not acceptable hence rejected. 29. The aforesaid finding of the Revenue authority is unsustainable in law. Approval under Section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is a jurisdictional pre-requisite. In the absence of such approval the proceedings would fall to the ground for want of jurisdiction. As such, the assessee is fully entitled to a copy of the order passed under section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and correspondingly, the Assessing Officer is obliged to hand-over a copy of the same, as and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressure and not giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in writing; (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order. 23. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessment orders are totally silent about the AO having written to the Additional CIT seeking his approval or of the Additional CIT having granted such approval. Interestingly, the assessment orders were passed on 30 th December 2010 without mentioning the above fact. These two orders were therefore not in compliance with the requirement spelt out in para 9 of the Manual of Official Procedure. 24. The above manual is meant as a guideline to the AOs. Since it was issued by the CBDT, the powers for issuing such guidelines can be traced to Section 119 of the Act. It has been held in a series of judgments that the instructions under Section 119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be given mechanically. Such approval granted mechanically without application of mind by the Addl. CIT resulting in vitiating the assessment orders. We find in the present case that the AO sought approval u/s. 153D of the Act on 30-09-2021, the Addl. CIT granted approval on the same day and the final assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act was also passed on the same day i.e. 30-09-2021 which clearly indicates that the approving authority granted approval mechanically without examining the relevant material. Admittedly, according to the AO, there were around 8300 pages, 16 hard disk and 6 pend drives found and seized in the case of group which were required to be taken into consideration while granting approval u/s. 153D of the Act by the Addl. CIT. Therefore, the Addl. CIT granted approval u/s. 153D of the Act mechanically without examining the above said relevant material without application of mind which resulting in vitiating the present final assessment order dated 30-09-2021 u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 38. The decision of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) as on relied by the ld. AR for the proposition, the purpose of having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in- built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that the approval envisaged in the section is not turned into an empty ritual. The Apex Court has held therein that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 17. The above discussion made in the judgement of Tribunal dated 3.08.2021 in the case of Navin Jain Vs. Dy. C.I.T. (Supra) has been relied by the Tribunal, in the instant case, to arrive at the conclusion that the mechanical approval under Section 153D of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings in the instant case. 18. For the reasoning given in the case of Navin Jain (Supra), as extracted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as noted above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to each assessment year is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A. 21. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 85 cases, i.e. for 85 assessment years placed before the Approving Authority on 30.12.2017 was approved on same day i.e. 30.12.2017, which not only included the cases of respondent-assessee but the cases of other groups as well. It is humanly impossible to go through the records of 85 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the material before the Approving Authority. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it was a mechanical exercise of power, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. 22. As the facts are admitted before us, the questions of law framed on the factual issues related to the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer are not open to agitate within the scope of the present appeal being in the nature of second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration before us. 39. In the light of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout considering the same has enhanced the assessments in some of the cases of the assessee. No steps have been taken by the A.O. for rectifying their mistakes when assessee filed petition for rectification under section 154 of the I.T. Act. Thus, there was inconsistencies and double additions made by the A.O. in various assessment years. It may also be noted that in the present case the facts stated in the impugned orders are that the sales of liquor are made by M/s. JIL to M/s. MAPSCO and Singla Group of cases and that part of the sale proceeds have been transferred to the account of M/s. Alfa India instead of paying the entire sale consideration to M/s. JIL. Thus, the nature of total receipt/addition is the sale proceeds originally to be received by M/s. JIL. If the part of the sale proceeds which were to be received by M/s. JIL and when transferred to the account of M/s. Alfa India Ltd., the entire part sale receipts cannot be the income either in the hands of M/s. JIL or M/s. Alfa India or the Assessees who may be the conduit as argued before us. The A.O. has failed to consider the concept of real income for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability and correct det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raft assessment orders for 07 assessment years on 29.12.2017 which were got approved on 30.12.2017 merely on the basis of draft assessment order. The JCIT in the approval Order Dated 30.12.2017 also mentioned that A.O. to ensure all the assessment proceedings are conducted as per procedure and Law. It would show that even JCIT was not satisfied with the assessment proceedings conducted by the A.O. as per Law and records. 16. In some of the cases the approval was granted on the date the request was made for approval by the A.O. In all those cases merely draft assessment order and the assessment folders were available with the A.O. For example in the case of Shri Sanjay Duggal family, in the case of Ms. Kritika Talwar on the same date the approval was granted and that too merely on the basis of the assessment records and draft assessment order and in most of the cases approval has been granted either on the same day or on the next day. Further, there is no reference that seized material as well as appraisal report have been verified by the JCIT. It is not clarified whether assessment record is also seen by the JCIT. It may also be noted that even in some of the Talwar group of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated for want of non- application of mind. 42. The next issue as pointed by the ld. AR with reference to instances of difference between draft assessment orders and final assessment orders, showing the same in a tabular form is on record. The ld. AR argued that the AO cannot pass final assessment order altering the draft assessment order. He placed reliance on the order of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mrs. Ratnabai N.K. Dubhash reported in 230 ITR 495 (Bom.). The relevant portion of which is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : 13. In the case of CIT Vs. Ratnabai N.K. Dubhash (Mrs.) (Supra), the difference between cancellation and amendment of assessment in view of the provisions of Sections 143, 144B, 153 and 251 of the I.T. Act 1961 has been dealt with. The Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to hold as under : In view of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that in cases falling under section 144B of the Act, the quasi-judicial function of the Income-tax Officer as an assessing authority comes to an end the moment the assessee files objections to the draft order. The power to determine the income of the assessee thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instances of difference between draft assessment orders and final assessment orders, we note that in A.Y.2014-15, in first para of page 4 of draft assessment order, the said para ends with the remarks hence, the amount is added to the total income , whereas, we find in para 4.3 in page 4 of final assessment order, the said para ends with the remarks hence, the amount is added to the total income and charging to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act . We note that the AO failed to apply the tax rate in the draft assessment order and which was approved by the Addl. CIT, thereafter, the AO added the tax rate u/s. 115BBE of the Act in the final assessment order, which clearly shows the AO deviated from the draft assessment order and by altering the same passed final assessment order, in our opinion, the AO cannot pass final order without fresh approval from the approving authority i.e. Addl. CIT. On careful reading of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay above, wherein, it clearly held the AO cannot vary or depart from the directions given by the inspecting Asstt. Commissioner. Further, the ITO is to pass final order in accordance with the direction given by the inspecting Asstt. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing 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. The Hon ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 47. In view of our discussion made here-in-above, considering the submissions of ld. AR, ld. DR, case laws relied on and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ashok Commercial Enterprises (supra), we hold that the approval dated 30-09-2021 granted u/s. 153D of the Act is covered by para 2 of Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14-08-2019 and for non-generation of DIN in pursuance of the said circular, the said approval is invalid treating the same deem to have never been issued. Consequently, the final assessment order dated 30-09-2021 is fails and quashed. 48. In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A Nos. 14/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 by the assessee. 59. We find ground No. 1 raised in this appeal is similar to ground No. 1 raised in IT(SS)A No. 11/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2014-15, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 30-09-2021 is invalid for the reason of non-mentioning of DIN, consequently, quashed the final assessment order dated 30-09-2021 passed in pursuance of such invalid approval dated 30-09-2021. The view taken by us in ground No. 1 in IT(SS)A No. 11/PUN/2023 is equally applicable to ground No. 1 in IT(SS) No. 14/PUN/2023. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 60. In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-09-2021, ground Nos. 2 to 7 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication. 61. In ground No. 8 the assessee has assailed levy of interest u/s. 234A of the Act. The levy of interest u/s. 234A is consequential. Accordingly, ground No. 8 is dismissed. 62. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A Nos. 15/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 by the assessee. 63. We find g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to ground No. 1 in ITA No. 516/PUN/2023. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 71. In view of our decision in ground No. 1 in quashing final assessment order dated 30-09-2021, ground Nos. 2 to 7 becomes academic, requiring no adjudication. 72. In ground No. 8 the assessee has assailed levy of interest u/s. 234A of the Act. The levy of interest u/s. 234A is consequential. Accordingly, ground No. 8 is dismissed. 73. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A No. 10/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2019-20 by the Revenue. 74. The revenue raised three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in directing the AO to re-compute deduction u/s. 80JJA of the Act. 75. In view of our decision in ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 11/PUN/2023, wherein, we allowed ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and held approval dated 30-09-2021 is invalid for the reason of non-mentioning of DIN, consequently, quashed the final assessment order dated 30-09-2021 passed in pursuance of such invalid approval dated 30- 09-2021, therefore, grounds raised by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
