Single approval under s.153D found mechanical, lacking reference to seized material and superior involvement, assessments quashed

ITAT Delhi - AT held that the single approval under s.153D was granted mechanically and lacked reference to seized material or superior involvement, thereby vitiating the assessments. Applying higher-court ratios, the impugned assessment orders for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 were quashed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act requires an independent application of mind by the approving authority for each assessment year and each assessee, and whether a mechanically or perfunctorily granted approval vitiates assessments framed under Section 153A/153C read with Section 153D.

2. Whether a single omnibus approval covering multiple assessment years for an assessee satisfies the statutory requirement of approval "for each assessment year" under Section 153D.

3. Whether absence of any indication that seized documents or draft assessment orders were perused by the approving authority renders the approval invalid and the consequent assessment null and void.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Requirement of independent application of mind under Section 153D

Legal framework: Section 153D mandates that before passing assessment/orders under Section 153A, approval of a specified higher authority is to be obtained; the statute contemplates approval in relation to the draft assessment order submitted by the Assessing Officer.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on multiple High Court decisions holding that the approving authority must apply independent mind to the draft assessment order and that approval cannot be a mere formality or "rubber stamping." Those precedents treat mechanical approvals as invalid; one cited decision refused to quash only because the approving authority could not reasonably be expected to peruse an enormous volume of cases in a day, but affirmed the principle that approval must be given year-wise and with application of mind.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the approval letter and found no articulation of reasons, no indication that draft orders or seized material were perused, and concluded the approval was a perfunctory form approval. The Court reasoned that the statutory purpose of a supervisory check (to verify procedure and compliance in each draft order) would be defeated by mechanical approvals. The approving authority must indicate, at least minimally, that he examined the draft and formed a view that legal requirements were satisfied.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Approval under Section 153D must reflect an independent application of mind; mechanical approval vitiates resulting assessments. Obiter - Elaborate reasons need not be given, but some indication of perusal/thought process is required.

Conclusions: The approval in this case was mechanical and therefore invalid; assessments based on such approval are vitiated.

Issue 2 - Requirement that approval be for "each assessment year" and invalidity of omnibus approval

Legal framework: The statutory language requires approval under Section 153D for "each assessment year" referred to in Section 153A(1)(b), implying year-wise scrutiny.

Precedent treatment: High Court authorities have interpreted "each assessment year" literally and held the approving authority must apply independent mind year-wise and assessee-wise; omnibus approvals covering multiple years or multiple assessees without distinct consideration have been condemned.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed a single approval covering four assessment years for the assessee and evidence that dozens of approvals were granted on the same day. It held that such a practice makes it impossible for the approving authority to have perused and applied mind to each draft order, defeating the legislative scheme that contemplates separate approval for each year. The absence of year-wise treatment in the approval document supports the conclusion of mechanical action.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Approval must be granted separately for each assessment year; a single omnibus approval for multiple years fails the statutory requirement. Obiter - Practical constraints on the approving authority do not validate an otherwise mechanical omnibus approval.

Conclusions: The omnibus approval in the present matter did not satisfy the statutory requirement that approval be given for each assessment year and is therefore invalid.

Issue 3 - Requirement to reference perusal of seized material / draft orders and consequences of silence

Legal framework: Section 153D approval functions as supervisory verification of the draft assessment; administrative guidance/manuals and case law require at least an indication that the approving authority examined the draft orders and the relevant material.

Precedent treatment: Courts have held that while detailed reasons need not be recorded, there must be some indication (even minimal) of the thought process or perusal; mere repetition of statutory words or a rubber-stamp "approved" will not suffice. Non-compliance has been held to be more than a procedural irregularity and can vitiate the assessment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The approval letter under examination contained no mention of any perusal of draft orders or seized documents and no indication of independent consideration. Given this silence and the contemporaneous practice of granting numerous approvals in a single day, the Tribunal concluded the approval was symbolic rather than substantive. The Court applied the settled principle that lack of even token indication of review undermines the validity of the approval and the assessments founded on it.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Absence of any indication that draft assessment orders or seized material were perused by the approving authority renders the approval susceptible to being quashed; such deficiency vitiates the assessment order. Obiter - The administrative manual and service of CBDT guidance are relevant indicia but not a substitute for the statutory requirement of demonstrable application of mind.

Conclusions: Silence in the approval regarding perusal of draft orders/seized material supports invalidation of the approval and quashing of assessments.

Interrelated reasoning and final disposition

Cross-references: Issues 1-3 are interlinked - the statutory requirement of approval for "each assessment year" (Issue 2) and the need to show perusal/thought process (Issue 3) are facets of the core duty to apply independent mind (Issue 1). Precedent consistently treats the absence of year-wise, considered approval as fatal to assessments under Section 153A/153C where Section 153D approval is mandatory.

Final conclusion: Applying the legal framework and consistent precedents, the Court found the approval to be mechanically granted (single omnibus approval, no indication of perusal or reasons), thereby vitiating the assessment orders founded on that approval; the assessments were quashed. Other grounds were not adjudicated in view of this dispositive finding.

---