TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - DR ORDER Per Arun Khodpia , AM : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the common order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Raipur, dated 22.11.2019 for the assessment years 2016-2017 2017-2018. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds for A.Y.2016-2017 as under :- 1. That the Ld. lower authorities have grossly erred in law and facts by invoking provisions of section 68 and making an addition of Rs.22,33,09,760/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the Ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs.1,11,655/- by deeming it to be the commission against above share capital received by the appellant. 3. That the Ld. lower authorities have erred in invoking section 153A in absence of any incriminating evidence, thus making the impugned addition void-ab-initio. 4. That the Ld. lower authorities have failed to appreciate or appraise the evidences and arguments submitted by the assessee to discharge its burden under section 68. 5. That the Ld. lower authorities have erred in law and in fact by relying on irrelevant and factually incorrect 'evidences without providing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences not related to the impugned case. 11. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing. 4. Subsequently, the assessee has filed additional ground on 05.08.2021, which reads as under:- 1. That the entire assessment made in the case of the assessee is null and void as approval granted under 153D is mechanical in nature and without application of mind. The Ld. JCIT has failed to peruse the assessment records and replies submitted by the assessee. The Ld. assessing officer has sought approval for about 95 orders on a single day without considering the replies and objection raised by the assessee. Such illegal approach of the ACIT has been approved by the Ld. JCIT in a mechanical manner on presumptive basis. 2. The Ld. assessing officer has clearly erred in complying with requirements of section 153A by passing a consolidated order for all the six assessment years in place of passing separate orders for each assessment year. 5. Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), reported in 229 ITR 383 and submitted that the additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that there is no adverse finding, satisfy himself that all issues emanating from the record have been verified and additions wherever required have been proposed. 23.Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently argued that JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind and that from the communication made to the JCIT by AO vide letter dated 14.12.2018, the AO had not made any iota of reference as to what are the seized materials nor furnishes any assurance with respect to approval and appraisal of all evidences and corresponding reply by the assessee. And that ld. JCIT approved the assessment order by presuming that the necessary opportunity has been given to the assessee and all the records, evidences and materials have been thoroughly verified. The JCIT granted bulk approval of 95 assessment orders which clearly defeats the intent and purpose behind insertion of section 153D brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2007. 24.We find that the ld. JCIT while granting approval, presumed that Assessing Officer has given proper hearing to the assessee and thoroughly verified seized material and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional CIT, was supposed to supervise. The addl. CIT in short appears to have adopted a short cut in the matter and an undertaking from AO was considered adequate by him/ her to accord approval in all assessments involved. Manifestly, the Additional CIT, without any consideration of merits in proposed adjustments with reference to appraisal report, incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT, Central has rendered the Approval to be a mere formality and ca not be countenanced in law. 26. Similar view was taken by Coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in Sanjay Duggal others (supra). 27.So far as the contention of ld CIT-DR that the assessment under section 153A is passed under the supervision of JCIT and that JCIT granted approval of the draft assessment after considering the material placed before him. We do not find any such satisfaction in the approval order that draft assessment after considering the material placed before him, rather the ld JCIT recorded that it is presumed that the AO granted proper opportunity to the assessee etc 28.In view, of aforesaid discussion and res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is not required to give reasons when it agrees with finding unless statute or rules so requires - Held, yes - Assessing Officer recorded reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 and thereafter obtained approval of Additional Commissioner under section 151(2) and after that issued notice under section 148 to assessee - Assessee contended that Additional Commissioner mechanically granted approval by affixing his signature without recording any satisfaction and, therefore, in view of section 151(2), it was not a valid sanction and, thus, notice issued under section 148 was bad in law and subsequent assessments under sections 143(3) and 147 were without jurisdiction - Whether mere fact that Additional Commissioner did not record his satisfaction would not render invalid, sanction granted under section 151(2), when reasons on basis of which sanction was sought for could not be assailed - Held, yes [Para 22] [In favour of revenue] 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 14. The contention of the revenue by placing the judgments of the Jurisdictional High Court of Chattishgarh and Calcutta High Court wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raipur in assessee s own case referred to supra. The decision of the ITAT Raipur has further strengthen by the order of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Sapna Gupta in I.T.Appeal No.88 of 2022 (Date of Judgment: 12.12.2022) 2022 (12) TMI 887 (Allahabad HC), where in it has been held that :- Search and seizure Assessment under s. 153A Approval under s. 153D Prior approval of superior authority means that it should appraise the material before it so as to appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the approving authority before preparing the draft assessment order In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases placed before the approving authority on 30th Dec., 2017 and 31st Dec., 2017 were approved on 31st Dec., 2017, which not only included the cases of assessee but the cases of other groups as well It is humanly impossible to go through the records of 123 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the material before the approving authority Conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it was a mechanical exercise of power, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
