Approval under section 153D invalid where competent authority gave single mechanical approval without independent review of records and evidence

ITAT DELHI - AT held the approval under section 153D invalid, finding it to be a composite, mechanical exercise granted via a single letter marking years without independent consideration of assessment records, appraisal reports or seized electronic evidence. The tribunal found the competent authority approved draft orders perfunctorily, relying on the AO's request for online approval and without reviewing incriminating material or giving independent reasons; such approval cannot be sustained.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined whether the approval was granted in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, as argued by the appellant, and whether such approval could sustain the assessment orders passed under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Validity of Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 153D of the Income Tax Act mandates that any assessment order under Section 153A must be approved by the designated authority. The approval should not be a mere formality but must reflect an application of mind. The Tribunal referenced decisions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other jurisdictions, emphasizing that mechanical approval without considering the assessment record and incriminating evidence is unsustainable.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized the approval process and found that the approval was granted on the same day the request was made, with no evidence that the appraisal report or seized documents were forwarded to the approving authority. The Tribunal noted that the approval letter used the same reference number for all assessment years, indicating a composite approval rather than individual consideration for each year.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal examined the letter dated 27.09.2021 from the Assessing Officer requesting approval and the subsequent approval letter. It found that the approval was granted without forwarding the necessary assessment records, appraisal reports, or seized documents, which are critical for informed decision-making.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that approval under Section 153D must involve an independent application of mind, as established in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal and reiterated in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar. The Tribunal concluded that the approval process in this case was mechanical and lacked the necessary scrutiny.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the approval was mechanical, relying on various judicial precedents. The Revenue defended the approval, claiming it was based on relevant materials. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's arguments more convincing, given the lack of evidence that the necessary documents were considered during the approval process.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, rendering the assessment orders unsustainable.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal highlighted the principle that "grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind."

Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that approvals under Section 153D must involve a thorough examination of the assessment records and relevant evidence. Mechanical approvals without such examination are invalid.

Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the assessment orders for the relevant years due to the invalidity of the approval process under Section 153D.

---