Search-based 153A assessments challenged over rubber-stamp 153D approvals; lack of year-wise, reasoned sanction led to annulment.

Assessments framed u/s 153A were challenged as void for want of valid prior approval u/s 153D. The ITAT held that approval u/s 153D is justiciable and must reflect independent application of mind to the draft order, applicable law, and relevant material; a non-speaking, omnibus approval for multiple assessees/years violates the requirement of separate, year-wise approval and CBDT's binding instructions under s 119 to provide adequate time and opportunity before the time-bar date. On facts, the common approval letter showed rubber-stamping, with no credible record of materials considered. Consequently, the u/s 153D approval was invalid and the entire u/s 153A assessment was vitiated and annulled, with no extension of limitation available to cure the defect.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the search assessments were void because the statutory prior approval under section 153D was granted mechanically, without due and independent application of mind, including by issuing a common approval for multiple assessees and multiple assessment years, and without adherence to the CBDT procedural requirement of seeking approval well in advance.

(ii) If the section 153D approval was found invalid, whether the Tribunal should nevertheless remand the matter for fresh approval, or whether the assessments must be annulled with no "second innings" to the Revenue.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Validity of prior approval under section 153D

Legal framework: The Tribunal treated section 153D as a mandatory in-built supervisory safeguard in search assessments, requiring "prior approval" by the specified superior authority before the Assessing Officer could pass the order. The Tribunal also examined the CBDT Manual/office procedure (referred to as binding departmental guidance) requiring the draft assessment order to be submitted "well in time", noting the one-month-before-time-barring guideline, and considered the statutory emphasis on "each assessment year" in the scheme of section 153A/153D.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that section 153D approval is not an empty formality and cannot be reduced to rubber-stamping. It identified minimum indicia of valid approval: (a) independent application of mind; (b) some discernible thought process showing examination of relevant record/material and the draft assessment; and (c) compliance with the procedural discipline expected in search assessments, including timely submission for meaningful approval. The Tribunal rejected the contention that section 153D approval, being "administrative", is immune from scrutiny, and held that mechanical approval vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal found, on the facts, that approvals were granted through a common letter covering a large number of assessments across multiple assessees and multiple years, within an extremely limited time around the limitation date. It held that, having regard to the volume and nature of relevant materials (seized material, digital data, appraisal/reporting material, settlement-related reports and replies, and assessment records), it was humanly impossible for the approving authority to have undertaken a meaningful year-wise and assessee-wise evaluation in the manner required. The approval letter was found to be non-speaking and to lack any indication of the approving authority's examination of the draft orders and record.

The Tribunal also found non-compliance with the CBDT procedural expectation that approvals be sought sufficiently before the time-barring date so that the safeguard is real, not ritualistic. It further held that approval for multiple years through a common approval, rather than year-wise approval for "each assessment year", violated the statutory scheme as understood by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal rejected Revenue's attempt to cure the infirmity through later affidavits and oral testimony tendered during appellate proceedings. It held such evidence unreliable in the circumstances, noted the absence of comparable direct support from the approving authority, and held that the record did not demonstrate that the approving authority actually examined the complete relevant material before granting approval.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the section 153D approval suffered from multiple infirmities-mechanical grant, absence of discernible application of mind, lack of meaningful compliance with the CBDT approval-timelines discipline, and violation of the "each assessment year" requirement as applied by the Tribunal. Consequently, the approvals were invalid.

Issue (ii): Consequence of invalid approval-annulment vs remand for fresh approval

Interpretation and reasoning: Having found the section 153D approval invalid, the Tribunal held that the defect goes to the root of the assessment and vitiates the assessment order itself. It refused the Revenue's alternative prayer to remand the matter to the approving authority for fresh approval, holding that such a course would amount to granting a second opportunity to the Revenue and would effectively circumvent statutory limitation, since the time available for assessment includes the time for securing valid section 153D approval and no legal provision was shown permitting extension on account of invalid approval.

Conclusion: The Tribunal annulled the assessment orders and set aside the appellate orders founded on them. Since the assessments were annulled on the jurisdictional defect, other grounds on merits were treated as academic and not adjudicated.

---