2025 (7) TMI 745 - AT - Income Tax

Invalid Section 153D approval renders entire assessment proceedings under Section 153C with 153A null and void

Minda Capital Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle 13, New Delhi. And (Vice-Versa)

The ITAT Delhi quashed assessment proceedings under section 153C read with section 153A due to invalid approval under section 153D. The tribunal held that ... Validity of assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A - invalid approval u/s 153D - as argued approval u/s 153D is administrative approval - HELD THAT:- We quash the entire proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Ld. Addl.CIT, Central Range-4, Delhi. Assessee appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these connected appeals for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 are:Whether the approval granted under section 153D of the Income Tax Act (the Act) for initiating assessment proceedings under section 153A/153C was valid, particularly whether it was a mechanical and arbitrary approval without application of mind and thus vitiated the assessment orders.Whether the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment orders violated CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, rendering the assessment orders null and void.The correctness and legality of additions confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) on account of unexplained business income, adhoc commission, and expenses under section 69C of the Act.Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's explanations and evidence, and confirming additions based on suspicion, assumption, and conjecture.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Approval under Section 153D of the ActRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153D mandates that no assessment or reassessment order under sections 153A or 153C shall be passed without prior approval of an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner. This approval must be granted with due application of mind and cannot be a mere formality or mechanical exercise. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have emphasized that approval must be based on consideration of relevant material and cannot be rubber-stamped or granted without examining the draft order on merit.Key precedents cited include judgments of the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar and PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal, the Bombay High Court in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT, and Supreme Court orders in ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., which collectively establish that mechanical or common approvals for multiple assessment years or multiple cases without individual scrutiny are invalid.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the approval dated 30.12.2019, which was a common approval covering multiple assessment years and multiple cases, granted on the same day as the assessment orders. The approval lacked any discussion of seized documents or issues involved, indicating no independent application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the approving authority granted approval for 43 cases on the same day, including 9 cases for the assessee, which was practically impossible to review with due diligence.The Tribunal relied heavily on the precedent set by the ITAT Delhi Bench in Millennium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, where similar mechanical approvals were held to be invalid. It also cited the Supreme Court's dismissal of Revenue's appeal in ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co., affirming the requirement of application of mind in granting approval under section 153D.Key Evidence and Findings: The approval letter itself was evidence of mechanical approval, as it was a composite order for multiple years and cases, with no reasoning or examination of draft assessment orders. The timing of approval and assessment orders on the same day further supported the conclusion of non-application of mind.Application of Law to Facts: The statutory mandate under section 153D requires separate, reasoned approval for each assessment year. The common and mechanical approval in this case contravened this requirement, rendering the assessment orders passed under such approval null and void.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the approval was administrative and procedural, with no bearing on the validity of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing that the statutory requirement of approval is substantive and jurisdictional, and cannot be bypassed by administrative convenience.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D was mechanical, arbitrary, and without application of mind, thus invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under such approval were quashed as non-est and nullities.Issue 2: Absence of DIN in Assessment OrdersRelevant Legal Framework: CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 mandates that all assessment orders must mention a Document Identification Number (DIN) to ensure authenticity and traceability.Court's Reasoning: The assessee raised this as a legal ground, arguing that absence of DIN violates the circular and renders the orders invalid. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground as purely legal and relevant to jurisdiction.Findings and Application: While the Tribunal did not elaborate extensively on this ground, it admitted the ground for adjudication and considered it alongside the issue of approval. The invalid approval rendered further examination of this point unnecessary.Issue 3: Legality and Merits of Additions Confirmed under Section 69CRelevant Legal Framework: Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure and allows the assessing officer to treat such expenditure as income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source or nature.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions on grounds of unexplained business income from fabric trading, adhoc commission, and expenses, arguing these were arbitrary and based on suspicion without incriminating documents.However, since the Tribunal found the entire assessment proceedings vitiated due to invalid approval under section 153D, it refrained from adjudicating these merits. The Tribunal held that the legal objection to approval went to the root of the matter and rendered other grounds infructuous.Issue 4: Rejection of Explanation and Evidence by CIT(A)The assessee contended that the CIT(A) mechanically rejected the explanation and evidence, confirming additions on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in view of its decision on the approval issue, which was dispositive of the appeals.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpt from the Millennium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case relied upon:'Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT ... affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held ... the approval should not be an empty ritual and must be based on consideration of relevant material on record ... The Additional CIT recorded that the draft order was submitted late and hence the approval was granted as it is submitted. This was a mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft order as it is without any independent application of mind ... The Tribunal is, therefore, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the approval was invalid in eye of law.'The Tribunal also quoted the Delhi High Court's finding in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar:'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 ... Whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority ... to grant judicious approval for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute ... The concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day ... The said order also fails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind.'Core principles established include:The approval under section 153D is a jurisdictional and substantive requirement that must be granted with application of mind.Mechanical, common, or composite approvals covering multiple assessment years or multiple cases without individual scrutiny are invalid.Invalid approval vitiates the entire assessment proceedings under sections 153A/153C, rendering them null and void.Legal objections to such approvals can be raised at any stage as they go to the root of the matter.Final determinations on each issue:The appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 were partly allowed on the ground of invalid approval under section 153D.The appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed.The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the merits of additions and other grounds in view of the dispositive nature of the approval issue.