9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes that no order shall be passed without there being Valid Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted in the body of the order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and Invalid in the eyes of law 4. 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 order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 113(3) of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search is invalid and unsustainable. 5. 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 proceedings Initiated under section 153A against the appellant and the assessment framed under section 1534 r.w.s 143(3) are in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat assessee has challenged the orders of lower authorities on various legal grounds which are at S. No. 1 to 6 however, during the course hearing ld. AR press only ground of appeal no 5 wherein the assessee challenge the assessment order on the technical ground in respect of approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act by the JCIT. The ld. AR drew our attention to copy of the approval granted by the ld. JCIT on 28.12.2019filed by the assessee along with written submissions filed. It was submitted that there were total Six cases containing total 21 different assessment years for which approval was sought by AO vide letter dt. 27.12.2019 reecived in the office of JCIT on 28.12.2019. The JCIT has granted approval in all the Six cases on the same day when the request was received in his office i.e. on 28.12.2019 for all the assessment years including the impugned Assessment years i.e. AY 2017-18 thus, approval was granted for total 21 assessment years. The approval in all the cases was sought by the DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal and approval was granted by the JCIT, Range Central, Chandigarh. It was the submission that a perusal of the approval granted clearly shows that the same is given in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arh thus for obtaining the approval entire records needs to be carried to Karnal to Chandigarh and the JCIT has to examine all the material including the assessment folders, appraisal report and seized material before granting the approval which cannot be humanly possible in a single day. Though it was stated by the AO and the JCIT in their affidavits that discussions were held between them telephonically and also during their personal visits either at Chandigarh or at Karnal. However, facts remained that in the impugned assessment year itself, the assessment order carries as many as 70 pages and around 5 issues involved on which additions were made. It is expected from the approving authority that before according the approval at least he must have read the entire draft order and also refer the seized material based on which additions are proposed. The JCIT has given approval on the same day despite of the fact that the entire records were sent from the office of the AO at Karnal to the office of JCIT at Chandigarh which is evident from the letter seeking approval. As mentioned earlier by the ld. AR that there are 21 cases for which the approval was sought and granted on the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efer 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 of mind then the very purpose of obtaining approval under Section 153D of the Act and mandate of the enactment by the legislature will be defeated. For granting approval under Section 153D of the Act, the Approving Authority shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record for "each assessment year" in respect of "each assessee" separately. The words 'each assessment year' used in Section 153D and 153A have been considered to hold that effective and proper meaning has to be given so that underlying legislative intent as per scheme of assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was held that the "approval" as contemplated under 153D of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in the context of section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply to section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein,(i) the Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order "well in time". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure 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." [Emphasis supplied] 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case of Serajuddin (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023. 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above. 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration. 19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of." 8. The same view is expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi high court in other cases relied upon by the ld.AR. The Hon'ble Orissa High court in the case of Serajjudin & Co reported in [2023] SCC Online Ori 992 which has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023 under identical circumstances has held the approval granted as invalid. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
