Invalid approval under section 153D renders assessment orders under section 153A void due to mechanical processing

ITAT Lucknow set aside assessment orders completed under section 153A due to invalid approval under section 153D. The assessee successfully argued that the Addl. CIT's approval was mechanical and granted without proper application of mind, as the brief timeframe made it humanly impossible to review extensive assessment records and search materials. The tribunal relied on multiple HC precedents including Subodh Agarwal, Serajuddin Co., and Shiv Kumar Nayyar cases. Following the SC decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell, additions made without incriminating material were deleted, and the assessment orders were annulled.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of assessment orders under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Mechanical approval under Section 153D.
3. Additions made in absence of incriminating material.
4. Procedural fairness and adequate opportunity for the appellant.
5. Jurisdictional issues concerning the assessment orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Orders under Section 153A:

The appellants challenged the validity of the assessment orders under Section 153A, arguing that they were invalid and unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction. The contention was that the assessment orders were completed without any incriminating material found during the search, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 153A. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, thus following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the additions made in such cases cannot be upheld. The Tribunal annulled the assessment orders on this ground.

2. Mechanical Approval under Section 153D:

The appellants argued that the statutory approval given by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind. It was highlighted that the Addl. CIT approved 110 cases in two days, which included the cases in the present appeals, making it humanly impossible to review the exhaustive assessment records and search materials. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, citing precedents where approvals given mechanically without due diligence were deemed invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval process lacked legal validity and quashed the assessment orders on this basis.

3. Additions Made in Absence of Incriminating Material:

The appellants contended that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were arbitrary and lacked relevance or nexus to any seized material. The Tribunal noted that in several cases, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were unabated. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions could be made in the absence of incriminating material and ordered the deletion of such additions.

4. Procedural Fairness and Adequate Opportunity for the Appellant:

The appellants argued that the assessment proceedings were conducted in an arbitrary and prejudicial manner without providing proper and adequate opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cross-examinations and did not conduct inquiries requested by the appellants. It was found that the assessment proceedings were rushed at the fag end of the limitation period, contributing to procedural unfairness. The Tribunal noted these procedural lapses and found them to be a violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Jurisdictional Issues Concerning the Assessment Orders:

The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the assessment orders, arguing that they were completed without valid and lawful approval under Section 153D. The Tribunal found that the approval process was flawed and lacked the required application of mind, rendering the assessment orders jurisdictionally invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory obligation under Section 153D was not discharged appropriately, leading to the annulment of the assessment orders.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, setting aside the impugned appellate orders and annulling the corresponding assessment orders. The Tribunal's decision was based on the findings that the assessments were conducted without incriminating material, approvals were given mechanically, and procedural fairness was not adhered to, thus lacking legal validity. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate on other matters as they were deemed academic in nature following the annulment of the assessment orders.

---