2025 (5) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C - invalid approval u/s 153D - approval sought by the AO u/s 153C whereas approval was granted u/s 153A HELD THAT - As relying on SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR 2024 (6) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT we quash the entire proceedings initiated u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Ld. Addl.CIT Central Range Meerut.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter primarily revolve around the validity of jurisdiction and procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C and the approval process mandated under section 153D. The key issues include:

1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) validly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act in the absence of proper and valid approval under section 153D.

2. The legality and validity of the approval granted under section 153D, particularly whether a composite or group approval covering multiple assessees and assessment years without individual application of mind is permissible.

3. Whether the assessment orders passed without valid approval under section 153D are vitiated and liable to be quashed.

4. Ancillary issues raised by the assessee regarding the correctness of additions made under sections 69C, 69A read with 115BBE, and the imposition of tax at the rate of 60% on such additions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of Jurisdiction under Section 153C and Approval under Section 153D

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C empowers the AO to make an assessment or reassessment in the case of a person in whose case any search or seizure has been conducted under section 132, on the basis of undisclosed income or assets found during such search in the case of another person. However, such assessment order cannot be passed without prior approval from a Joint Commissioner or higher authority as mandated under section 153D. The approval under section 153D must be granted with due application of mind for each assessment year separately. The approval cannot be mechanical or routine.

Several judicial pronouncements have emphasized that the approval under section 153D is a mandatory and substantive requirement, which must involve an independent application of mind by the approving authority. Notable among these are the decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in PCIT vs. Siddarth Gupta, the ITAT Delhi Bench in M/s Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar. These decisions hold that mechanical or composite approvals covering multiple assessees and assessment years without detailed scrutiny are invalid and render the assessment orders passed thereunder void ab initio.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal carefully examined the approval letter dated 08.06.2018, which was a composite approval covering multiple assessees and assessment years. The approval was granted on the same day for 43 cases, including the assessee's, without any indication of perusal or independent consideration of the draft assessment orders. The Tribunal found that such approval was a mere "rubber stamping" or "mechanical exercise" lacking any application of mind.

The Tribunal relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Siddarth Gupta's case, where a similar composite approval was held to be void. It also referenced the ITAT Delhi Bench's decision in M/s Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., which held that approval granted without adequate time or consideration is invalid. The Tribunal noted that the approving authority explicitly stated that due to time constraints, the approval was granted "as is," indicating absence of genuine scrutiny.

Further, the Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, which underscored that approval under section 153D cannot be a ritualistic formality and must reflect application of mind. The Court highlighted that granting approval for multiple assessment years and multiple assessees in a single order contravenes the statutory requirement of separate approval for each assessment year.

Key Evidence and Findings: The approval letter itself, the timing of approval (same day as draft orders were submitted), and the fact that the same approval covered multiple assessees and years were critical evidence. The Tribunal also noted the Right to Information (RTI) response indicating the approving authority granted approval for 43 cases on the same day, reinforcing the mechanical nature of the approval.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the approval under section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically without due application of mind and without separate consideration for each assessment year and assessee. Consequently, the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C was not validly conferred.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the discrepancy between the section under which approval was sought (153C) and the section under which approval was granted (153A) was a clerical error and should not vitiate the proceedings. The Tribunal rejected this as a mere formality cannot cure the substantive defect of lack of application of mind. The Revenue's reliance on the CIT(A)'s findings was also not accepted as the Tribunal found the approval defective on record and supported by binding precedents.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under section 153C without valid approval under section 153D are null and void. The entire proceedings initiated under section 153C read with section 153A were quashed.

2. Additions under Sections 69C, 69A read with 115BBE and Tax Rate Imposition

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69C deals with unexplained investments, section 69A with unexplained cash credits, and section 115BBE prescribes a special tax rate of 60% on income under certain sections including 69C and 69A. Section 37 deals with general business expenditure disallowance.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee challenged the additions made by the AO on several grounds including genuineness of purchases, disallowance of GST/VAT component, and the validity of WhatsApp conversations relied upon as evidence. However, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating these substantive grounds as the jurisdictional issue regarding approval under section 153D was decided in the assessee's favor, rendering further examination unnecessary.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the detailed grounds of appeal raised by the assessee but did not delve into evidentiary analysis or merits of additions due to the overarching jurisdictional defect.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the assessment orders were quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not consider the merits of additions or tax rate applicability.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's arguments on merits were not addressed given the jurisdictional quashing.

Conclusion: The Tribunal left the merits of additions open and did not uphold the additions or tax rate imposition.

3. Other Procedural Grounds

The assessee also raised issues regarding passing assessment orders without DIN (Document Identification Number) and denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing. These were not adjudicated in view of the primary finding on invalid approval and jurisdiction.

Significant Holdings

"The approval granted under section 153D of the Act, which is a mandatory pre-condition for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C, must be preceded by application of mind and consideration of relevant material on record. Mechanical or routine approvals, especially composite approvals covering multiple assessees and assessment years without individual scrutiny, are invalid."

"The assessment orders passed without valid approval under section 153D are non-est and a nullity and hence liable to be quashed."

"The mere fact that approval was granted on the same day as the draft orders were submitted, without any indication of perusal or independent consideration, demonstrates lack of application of mind and renders the approval void."

"The discrepancy between the section under which approval was sought and the section under which it was granted cannot be treated as a mere clerical error to uphold the validity of approval."

"Since the jurisdictional defect vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, there is no need to examine the merits of additions or other grounds raised by the assessee."

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessees by quashing the assessment orders passed under section 153C for lack of valid approval under section 153D. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision aligns with the authoritative judicial pronouncements emphasizing the mandatory nature of valid approval under section 153D and the requirement of application of mind before assuming jurisdiction under section 153C.