s.153D approval must be separate and reasoned for each assessment year; blanket approval quashes multiple years' assessments

ITAT held that approval under s.153D must be given separately for each assessment year and must indicate the approving authority's thought process; mere rote repetition or a single blanket approval for multiple years is inadequate. A mechanical or rubber-stamp approval vitiates resulting assessment orders. Because a single s.153D approval was granted for seven assessment years without mention of seized material or involvement of the superior authority, assessments for AY 2010-11 to 2016-17 were quashed and the taxpayer's appeal allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether approval accorded under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act can be a mechanical or perfunctory approval (rubber-stamp) and, if so, whether such mechanical approval vitiates assessments framed under Section 153A read with Section 153D.

2. Whether a single approval under Section 153D for multiple assessment years and multiple assessees, granted on the same day without any recorded perusal or indication of application of mind, satisfies the statutory requirement of approval "for each assessment year" and for "each assessee".

3. What are the minimal content and procedural requisites of an approving order under Section 153D (i.e., whether elaborate reasons are required, and whether there must be some indication that draft assessment orders and seized material were perused).

4. What is the applicable standard of judicial review in assessing the legality of an administrative approval under Section 153D (scope of review: illegality, irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety), and whether administrative law precedents on review of administrative action are applicable to Section 153D approvals.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legality of mechanical/perfunctory approval under Section 153D and its effect on assessments under Section 153A.

Legal framework: Section 153D mandates that draft assessment orders prepared under Section 153A be submitted to the approving authority (Joint/Additional Commissioner) and that prior approval be obtained before final assessment is passed; approval is a condition precedent to completion of assessment under Section 153A.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relies on and follows a line of High Court and Tribunal decisions (including decisions cited as Sapna Gupta, Serajuddin & Co., Anuj Bansal, Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and Subhash Dabas) which hold that approval under Section 153D cannot be a mere formality or mechanical act and must reflect independent application of mind. The Supreme Court's principles on judicial review of administrative action (Tata Cellular, Municipal Council Neemuch, West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim) are applied to the scrutiny of such approvals.

Interpretation and reasoning: The approving authority must apply independent mind to the draft assessment order; mere use of words like "seen" or "approved" without indication of examination is insufficient. Where approval is shown to be ritualistic-e.g., a single, undifferentiated approval for multiple years or multiple assessees, or mass approvals on a single day without any record of perusal-such approval is vitiated. Because approval under Section 153D is a statutory precondition, its absence or invalidity affects the very substratum of the assessment process and renders assessments null and void.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Approval under Section 153D must entail a genuine application of mind; mechanical approval vitiates the assessment under Section 153A. Obiter - While not requiring elaborate reasons, there must be some indication that draft orders and material were considered.

Conclusion: Mechanical or perfunctory approval under Section 153D invalidates the consequent assessments framed under Section 153A and leads to quashing of those assessment orders.

Issue 2: Requirement that approval be given "for each assessment year" and for each assessee (single approval for multiple years/assessees).

Legal framework: The statutory text uses the phrase "each assessment year" and the scheme contemplates approval year-wise and assessee-wise; the approving authority's verification pertains to the issues raised by the AO in the draft order for that specific assessment year and assessee.

Precedent treatment: Decisions of various High Courts and Tribunals (expressly relied upon) have interpreted the phrase "each assessment year" to require separate application of mind by the approving authority for each assessment year and each assessee; mass or omnibus approvals have been criticized and struck down where they demonstrate lack of per-case consideration.

Interpretation and reasoning: Granting a single approval covering seven assessment years for one assessee (or multiple assessees) on the same day, without any mention of perusal of seized material or consideration of issues specific to each year, indicates absence of the statutory, year-wise, and assessee-wise scrutiny required by Section 153D. Practical constraints (e.g., volume of cases approved in one day) reinforce the inference that genuine examination could not have been undertaken.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Separate approval for each assessment year/assessee is required; single omnibus approval for multiple years or multiple assessees which does not reflect individual examination is invalid. Obiter - The practical impossibility of perusal in mass approvals may be a factor but is evidence rather than a standalone legal rule.

Conclusion: A single undifferentiated approval for multiple assessment years/assessees, granted without recorded perusal or thought process, does not satisfy Section 153D and vitiates resultant assessments.

Issue 3: Minimal content and procedural requisites of an approving order under Section 153D (need for reasons/indication of perusal).

Legal framework: Section 153D does not prescribe a detailed form or require elaborate reasons; it requires "prior approval". Administrative law, however, requires that the decision-making process be legitimate, lawful, and not arbitrary.

Precedent treatment: Authorities (including Orissa High Court in Serajuddin, and other cited decisions) hold that while elaborate reasons are not mandatory, there must be some indication that the approving authority examined the draft order and formed a view - minimal indication of the thought process; mere parroting of statutory language or rubber stamping is inadequate.

Interpretation and reasoning: The approving authority need not write exhaustive reasons but should record sufficient indication that the draft assessment orders and relevant seized/connected material were considered and that statutory preconditions were satisfied. Such minimal notation safeguards the statutory intent and permits meaningful judicial review of whether the approval was bona fide.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Minimal indicia of perusal/application of mind must be recorded in the approval; absence of such indicia renders the approval invalid. Obiter - The Technical Manual and CBDT guidelines are useful indicia but not substitutive of the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Approval must minimally reflect that the approving authority considered the draft order and related material; absence of such indication renders the approval and consequent assessments vulnerable to quashment.

Issue 4: Standard of judicial review applicable to approvals under Section 153D (scope: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety) and its application.

Legal framework: Judicial review of administrative action is confined to legality, Wednesbury unreasonableness (irrationality), and procedural impropriety; courts should not act as appellate fact-finders but may quash decisions that no reasonable authority could have taken or that are vitiated by manifest procedural or legal error.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applies Supreme Court authorities on judicial review (Tata Cellular, Municipal Council Neemuch, West Bengal Central School Service, etc.) to assess whether the approval process was vitiated by apparent legal error or procedural impropriety.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examines the approval document, contemporaneous record and the circumstances (single-day mass approvals; lack of reference to perusal of seized material; single omnibus approval for multiple years). Where those facts show an apparent absence of application of mind or procedural impropriety, the approval is amenable to judicial interference under established standards.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Judicial review will invalidate administrative approvals under Section 153D where there is apparent error on the face of the record, procedural impropriety, or irrationality such that no reasonable authority could have granted approval. Obiter - The degree of reasons required varies with context; here, minimal indication suffices.

Conclusion: Standard of limited judicial review applies; on the facts presented the approval was demonstrably mechanical and thus susceptible to quashing under established principles of administrative law.

Final Disposition (Court's conclusion on identified issues)

The approving order under Section 153D was a perfunctory, single omnibus approval for seven assessment years granted on the same day without mentioning perusal of seized material or indicating application of mind. Applying the statutory scheme and the consistent judicial authorities cited, the approval was held to be mechanical and therefore legally defective; consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A for the relevant assessment years were quashed. Because assessments were quashed on this ground, remaining factual and legal contentions were not adjudicated.

---