2024 (2) TMI 690 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Quashes Assessment Order for 2014-15 Due to Improper Approval, Dismisses Revenue Appeals, Supports Assessee.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, finding it unenforceable due to the approval under section 153D being granted without proper ... Validity of approval granted by the JCIT u/s.153D - Validity of assessment order passed in contrary to the provisions of section 153D - certain information belonging to the assessee were retrieved from the HD’s / Pendrives/ DVD’s particularly from the hard disc of the computer of an employee of the concerns - HELD THAT:- As seen from the approval letter 18 cases were approved u/s. 153D of the Act and what is glaring is the stamp put wherein it has been stated “ Draft assessment order received late on 30.12.2016 beyond the time and thus having very little time for proper examination of the facts of the case records etc”. This approval clearly shows the haste and the mechanical manner there being no application of mind on the part of the approving authority. On identical set of facts on the very same approval exhibited elsewhere this Tribunal in one of the group cases of M.G. Metalloy Private Limited [2023 (10) TMI 686 - ITAT DELHI] held the assessment order illegal in pursuance of hollow and cosmetic approved u/s. 153D. Assessee appeal allowed. Issues involved:The judgment involves appeals and cross objections by the revenue and the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The common challenge is regarding the assessment order passed by the AO being contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Act.Issue 1: Assessment Order Contrary to Section 153D:The crux of the matter revolves around the approval granted by the JCIT, Central Range, Meerut under section 153D of the Act. The approval was hurriedly given without proper examination of facts, indicating a lack of application of mind on the part of the approving authority. This haste and mechanical manner of approval were evident from the stamp which highlighted the late receipt of the draft assessment order, leaving very little time for a thorough examination.Issue 2: Lack of Application of Mind in Approval:The Tribunal noted that the approval under section 153D lacked proper consideration of the assessment records and seized materials, leading to a mere abstract approval of draft assessment orders. The approving authority's admission of having very little time for examination further indicated a symbolic exercise to meet legal requirements without a genuine review of the case specifics.Issue 3: Judicial Findings and Precedents:In previous cases, including one involving M.G. Metalloy Private Limited, the Tribunal had held similar approvals under section 153D as illegal due to a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evaluating each assessment year separately, as a combined approval for multiple assessment years was deemed contrary to legal principles.Issue 4: Quashing of Assessment Order:Based on the foregoing discussions and in line with previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, made in reliance on a hollow and cosmetic approval under section 153D without proper application of mind, was unenforceable in law and therefore quashed. This decision was consistent with the approach taken in other group cases where similar approvals were found to be legally deficient.Separate Judgement:The cross objections raised by the assessee were allowed, while the corresponding appeals by the revenue were dismissed. Additionally, the additional ground raised by the assessee in one of the appeals was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent set in similar cases where approvals under section 153D were deemed to lack proper scrutiny and application of mind, leading to the quashing of assessment orders.