Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Proper Review in Tax Approval Process for 2010-11, Aligns with Previous Case Findings.

The HC dismissed the appeal against the ITAT's order for the assessment year 2010-11, citing a lack of application of mind in the approval process under Section 153 D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the Joint Commissioner had not adequately reviewed the files before granting approval, aligning with a previous case's findings. The revenue's argument that the Tribunal erred was rejected, as the approval lacked the necessary legal scrutiny. Consequently, the appeal and related applications were dismissed due to insufficient examination by the approving authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the admission of appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2010-11, based on substantial questions arising from the approval granted under section 153 D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Approval under Section 153 D
The Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner was based on due consideration of the files, and the Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessments. He highlighted the approval dated 23rd November, 2017, and pointed out that the approval was sought by the Assessing Officer on 17th November, 2017. The Counsel argued that a previous judgment of the Court was not applicable to the current case.

Issue 2: Lack of Application of Mind in Approval
The advocate for the assessee contended that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner lacked the necessary application of mind, citing a previous case where it was emphasized that the approving authority must examine the draft orders and ensure they meet legal requirements. The advocate relied on paragraphs 22 to 25 of the previous case to support the argument that there was no indication that the approving authority had reviewed the files.

In paragraph 22 of the previous case, it was highlighted that the approving authority must examine the draft orders and indicate that they meet legal requirements. The Court found similarities in the facts of the current case with the previous case, where the approval did not mention that the Joint Commissioner had reviewed the files. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and applications based on the lack of application of mind in the approval process.

---