Departmental approval under s.153D quashed for being mechanical omnibus approval covering twenty assessment years and multiple taxpayers

ITAT DELHI - AT held the departmental approval under s.153D was mechanical and unsustainable because a single omnibus approval covered twenty assessment years for multiple taxpayers without separate consideration of records, appraisal reports or seized material for each year and assessee. Relying on precedent from the HC and a co-ordinate ITAT bench, the Tribunal found the approval defective and quashed the assessment order as vitiated, allowing the taxpayer's ground challenging the approval.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether approval under section 153D must be granted separately for each assessment year and each assessee, and whether an omnibus or mechanically granted approval vitiates reassessment proceedings under section 153A read with section 153D.

2. Whether an approval under section 153D granted without any discernible application of mind (mechanical/omnibus approval) nullifies the resultant assessment orders passed under section 153A/143(3).

3. If an approval under section 153D is found to be vitiated, whether the consequential assessment orders can be quashed or cured by remand; and whether non-compliance with procedural safeguards (such as disposal of objections under GKN Driveshafts) renders assessment void or merely irregular.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Requirement that approval under section 153D be granted for each assessment year and each assessee

Legal framework: Section 153A(1) and section 153D require that draft assessment orders prepared after search and seizure be placed before the approving authority and that approval be obtained prior to finalizing assessment. The statutory language refers to "each assessment year" in the context of approvals.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts (e.g., Shiv Kumar Nayyar; PCIT v. Sapna Gupta; Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin & Co.; Pr. CIT v. MDLR Hotels) holding that approval must reflect application of mind and, critically, that approval should be given for each assessment year/each assessee; omnibus approvals have been held impermissible where the approving authority could not have applied independent mind.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed the phrase "each assessment year" literally and purposively: approval must relate to each assessment year separately so that the approving authority applies independent mind to the specific draft assessment order and the material/seized records relevant to that year and assessee. An omnibus approval covering multiple years and multiple assessees defeats the statutory design that the approving authority examine the draft and associated records for the particular year/assessee.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - approval under section 153D must be for each assessment year and each assessee; omnibus approval is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Observational obiter - considerations about the volume of cases an approving authority may prudently examine (human limitations) and reference to administrative practices and manuals.

Conclusion: Approval under section 153D must be granted year-wise and assessee-wise; a single omnibus approval for multiple years/assessees is inconsistent with statutory requirement and liable to invalidate downstream assessments where the approval shows no application of mind.

Issue 2: Effect of mechanical/omnibus approval (absence of application of mind) on assessments passed under section 153A/143(3)

Legal framework: Section 153D makes approval a precondition for finalizing assessments after search; principles of administrative law require that delegated/statutory approvals involve application of mind. Judicial precedents have examined whether mechanical approvals amount to rubber-stamping and thus vitiate orders.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on a line of authorities (including High Court and Supreme Court decisions cited) which hold that approval should not be a ritualistic formality and that mechanical approvals without indicia of scrutiny may vitiate assessment orders. Cases distinguished where factual matrix demonstrated independent application of mind or where assessing records/seized material were placed before the approving authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the approval memo and surrounding facts - a single approval letter covered twenty assessment years in five different assessees, with no indication that the approving authority perused draft orders or seized material or applied independent thought to each year/assessee. The Court noted parallel coordinate-bench findings that the same approval letter had been held mechanical in similar cases. Given the statutory precondition and the absence of any token indication of perusal or thought-process, the approval was adjudged to be mechanical.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where approval under section 153D is granted mechanically without evidence of application of mind to the draft assessment order and the relevant records, the resultant assessment is vitiated. Observations - administrative practice, CBDT guidelines, and the permissible scope of remand vs. quashing in different factual contexts.

Conclusion: The approval in the instant factual matrix was mechanical and therefore the assessments based on that approval (under section 153A/143(3)) are vitiated and liable to be quashed.

Issue 3: Remedial consequences - quashing vs. remand; effect of procedural non-compliance with disposal of objections (GKN Driveshafts line)

Legal framework: GKN Driveshafts (Supreme Court) requires disposal of objections to reasons for reopening (speaking order) prior to completing reassessment; jurisprudence distinguishes procedural irregularities that are curable by remand from those that are fatal.

Precedent treatment: The Court considered authorities holding that failure to comply with GKN is a procedural irregularity which can in appropriate cases be cured by remand, as well as authorities holding that mechanical approvals under section 153D may be fatal and render assessment void. The Court identified factual distinctions in cases where remand was accepted vs. where quashing was ordered.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court differentiated two procedural contexts: (a) disposal of objections under GKN - while mandatory as a procedural safeguard, non-compliance may be an irregularity amenable to cure by remand; (b) approval under section 153D - is a mandatory statutory precondition the absence or mechanical character of which goes to jurisdiction/validity of the assessment. Given the material showed an omnibus approval lacking any indication of scrutiny, the Court concluded that the defect was fundamental and justified quashing rather than mere remand. The Court noted related coordinate-bench findings and judicial precedents where similar omnibus approvals were treated as vitiating assessments and quashed.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - mechanical grant of approval under section 153D is not a mere curable procedural irregularity but can be fatal to the assessment; GKN non-compliance may, in many cases, be remediable by remand, but that does not salvage a fundamentally defective section 153D approval. Observations - courts should, when possible, decide on merits; however, where statutory preconditions are absent or mechanical, quashing is appropriate.

Conclusion: In the present facts the approval defect was fundamental; assessment orders founded on that approval are quashed. Procedural lapses under GKN do not supply legitimacy where the mandatory statutory approval under section 153D is mechanically granted.

Interplay with administrative guidelines and human limitation arguments

Legal framework and precedent treatment: Revenue argued administrative practice, CBDT guidelines, and the possibility that approving authorities are familiar with seized material; courts have accepted such contextual facts where supported by record, but have also condemned rubber-stamping where token approval letters lack any indication of perusal.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the approving authority may have prior knowledge of cases via appraisal reports or coordination but emphasized that approval letters must still demonstrate, at least minimally, that the approving authority considered the draft orders/material. Mere assertion of familiarity or high volume does not discharge the statutory requirement. Distinguishing precedents where factual indicia of application of mind were present, the Court found no such indicia in the approval before it.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - factual proof of thoughtful consideration is required; administrative familiarity does not automatically validate an otherwise silent omnibus approval. Observations - consideration of human limitations is fact-specific and cannot substitute for record evidence of application of mind.

Final Disposition and Consequences

Conclusion drawn by the Court: The approval under section 153D was mechanical/omnibus and therefore void; assessments for the relevant assessment years (2011-12 to 2019-20) premised on that approval were quashed. Appeals of the assessee on this ground were allowed; related revenue appeals became infructuous and were dismissed. Other grounds were not adjudicated because the primary ground succeeded.

---