Assessment orders under section 153A invalid due to defective mechanical approval under section 153D lacking proper application of mind

The ITAT Delhi held that assessment orders under section 153A were invalid due to defective approval under section 153D. The superior authority granted consolidated approval for multiple cases across different assessment years in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, doing so within one day of requisition. The approval was generic and blanket without reference to specific issues or assessment years. The Additional CIT failed to note that the assessing officer had not determined assessed income. Following precedent in Mysore Bhaskara Pankaja case, the tribunal ruled the approval suffered from non-application of mind, rendering it non-est in law and consequently invalidating the assessment orders. Decision favored the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19.

Analysis:

The appeals were filed against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer and questioned the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act. The approval was granted by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi, in a consolidated manner to 58 cases, including the ones under appeal, without individual assessment. The assessee argued that the approval lacked proper application of mind and was a mere formality. The Revenue defended the approval, claiming that statutory requirements were met.

Upon reviewing the submissions and case laws, the Tribunal examined the legality of the approval under Section 153D. It was observed that the approval was granted hastily and generically without considering individual assessments. The approval memo indicated a lack of detailed evaluation, raising concerns about non-application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not quantified the assessed income, further highlighting the deficiency in the approval process.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contentions and found the approval under Section 153D to be inadequate, similar to a previous case where such approval was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Assessment Orders based on the flawed approval were declared null and void. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-est approval rendered the Assessment Orders invalid in the eyes of the law, leading to the quashing of the additions/disallowances made in those orders. As a result, all appeals by the assessee were allowed.

---