ITAT deletes assessment under section 153A finding mechanical approval without application of mind and natural justice violations

ITAT Delhi quashed assessment made u/s 153A for AY 2015-16 after finding that JCIT's approval u/s 153D was mechanical and granted without application of mind through common communication for multiple cases. The tribunal held that additions made u/s 10(38) based on broker's statement without providing cross-examination opportunity violated principles of natural justice, following Andaman Timber Industries SC precedent. Business promotion expenses disallowed by AO for non-production of bills were deleted, as books of account were not rejected following R.G. Buildwell Engineers HC decision approved by SC.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG).
3. Reliance on statements made during survey actions and denial of cross-examination.
4. Addition of commission expenses at 0.2% of alleged accommodation entries.
5. Disallowance of business promotion expenses due to non-production of bills and vouchers.
6. Mechanical approval under Section 153D without application of mind.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment under Section 153C:

The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, arguing it was completed without jurisdiction and legal compliance, rendering it void ab initio. The tribunal admitted this as a legal ground, emphasizing that it pertains to the jurisdiction and validity of the assessment made under Section 153A. The tribunal relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions, to underscore the necessity of legal compliance in such assessments.

2. Disallowance of Exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG:

The assessee contested the disallowance of exemption for LTCG on the sale of shares, which the AO deemed bogus based on a survey of the broker involved. The tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion was based on generalized material and statements from a broker's MD, which lacked direct evidence against the assessee. The tribunal highlighted that the shares were held in a demat account for over 365 days, sold through a registered broker, and STT was paid, meeting the criteria for exemption under Section 10(38). The tribunal cited various judicial precedents where similar disallowances were overturned due to lack of concrete evidence.

3. Reliance on Statements Made During Survey Actions and Denial of Cross-Examination:

The tribunal found that the AO relied heavily on the statement of the broker's MD, which was not provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination as a principle of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, which held that denial of cross-examination renders the order a nullity. Consequently, the tribunal directed the deletion of additions made based on such statements.

4. Addition of Commission Expenses at 0.2% of Alleged Accommodation Entries:

The tribunal observed that the addition of commission expenses was based on conjectures without any supporting evidence. It reiterated that the primary burden of proof lies with the revenue to establish such expenses, which was not discharged in this case. The tribunal referenced judicial precedents that emphasize the necessity of evidence to support any additions made by the AO.

5. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses:

The AO disallowed business promotion expenses due to non-production of bills and vouchers, despite the assessee providing a ledger account and complete books of account. The tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd., held that disallowances cannot be made without rejecting the books of account. Therefore, the tribunal deleted the disallowance.

6. Mechanical Approval under Section 153D without Application of Mind:

The tribunal noted that the approval under Section 153D was granted through a common communication for multiple cases, indicating a lack of application of mind. Citing the Allahabad High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta, the tribunal held that such mechanical approvals are bad in law. Consequently, the assessment made under Section 153A was quashed.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years, quashing the assessments and deleting the additions made by the AO. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal procedures, the importance of evidence, and the principles of natural justice in tax assessments.

---