9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en accorded comprising out of seven Assessment Years. Thus the assessment order based on ritualistic approval stands vitiated and thus quashed by allowing Ground of appeal of the Assessee. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv Shri Aman Garg, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, ( Ld. CIT(A) for short), New Delhi, dated 09/11/2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds of Appeal are as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in passing the ex-parte order without giving the Assessee an opportunity of being heard is clear violation of the principle of Natural Justice. (ii) That the non-appearance before the CIT(A) was because of the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee that the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without any application of mind. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of assessee that the assessment order passed is bad in the eyes of law as the same was passed in violation of circular no. 19/2019 issued by CBDT which mandates that no order shall be passed without there being Valid Document Identification Number (DIN). 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 32,41,000/- made on account of deposit in the bank accounts treating the same as unexplained invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to a search and seizure operation carried out at the vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proval is in the nature of Performa approval; the approval granted is nothing but mechanical one and the approving authority has exercised symbolic powers vested under s. 153D of the Act. Apart from the same, a single approval has been granted for seven Assessment Years in total. 8 The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) held as under:- 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase- each assessment year used in the language of Section 153D of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as under:- 13. It was held therein that if an approval has been granted by the Approving Authority in a mechanical manner without application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:- 22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. As explained in the above cases, the mere repeating of the words of the statute, or mere rubber stamping of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like seen or approved will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact is not in dispute before us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessees, which information is not available before us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together. 17. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmitted by Revenue may vitiate the assessment order. The SLP filed against the aforesaid judgment in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin Co. Kolkata was dismissed as reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC). 10. The ratio of judgement delivered in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin Co. Kolkata; PCIT vs Anuj Bansal; PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar; and PCIT vs Subhash Dabas (supra) has held in chorus that the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act, if granted mechanically, will vitiate the assessment order itself. 11. As noted in the instant case, In the first para of the approval memo, the Addl. CIT referred the letter of the A.O. dated 17/12/2019, and in the second para, it was stated that the on the basis of discussion held from time to time the approval u/s 153D of the Act is granted in respect of seven cases. The approval dated accorded u/s 153D of the Act is bearing the printed date of 17/12/2019 and hand written date of 18/12/2019 and the same has been signed on 18/12/2019. There is not even mentioning of any draft assessment order or the assessment records or the seized materials in the said approval letter. Such mechanical approval cannot be sustainable in law in the light of judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
