Assessments under sections 153A r.w.s. 144/143(3) quashed for lack of jurisdiction, mechanical 153D approval, missing 143(2)

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeals and quashed the assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 144/143(3). It held that the AO acted without proper jurisdiction amid parallel and confused transfers of the case, violated principles of natural justice by giving virtually no opportunity to be heard, and completed assessment within two days of filing of return. The approval u/s 153D by the JCIT was found mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the assessments non est in law. Absence of notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2014-15 further invalidated the proceedings. Additions on merits were left unadjudicated as academic.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the notice issued under section 153A by the Assessing Officer after transfer of jurisdiction was without authority on the ground that the transfer order, though dated earlier, was dispatched/communicated later.

1.2 Whether the assessments framed under section 153A/144 for AY 2013-14 and under sections 144/143(3) for AY 2014-15 were vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and for being passed in a hurried and mechanical manner.

1.3 Whether the statutory approval under section 153D was valid when granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without noticing filing of return by the assessee.

1.4 Whether, upon holding the assessments to be invalid, the matters ought to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessments.

1.5 For AY 2014-15, whether the assessment was invalid for want of mandatory notice under section 143(2) after valid transfer of jurisdiction.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 153A dated 22.03.2016

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.1 The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner (Central) passed an order on 21.03.2016 transferring the assessee's case to the concerned Assessing Officer under section 127. From that date, jurisdiction stood vested in the said Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that since the transfer order bore a dispatch stamp of 23.03.2016, the notice issued under section 153A on 22.03.2016 was without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer would not yet have been made aware of the transfer.

2.2 The Tribunal held that jurisdiction flows from the date of the transfer order of the competent authority and not from the date of its physical dispatch stamp. It observed that it was possible that communication of the transfer order had been made to the Assessing Officer through some other mode prior to dispatch, which was supported by the fact that a fresh notice under section 153A was in fact issued on 22.03.2016, indicating receipt of such communication. There was no reason for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice under section 153A unless he was aware of the transfer.

2.3 The Tribunal also observed that earlier proceedings under section 153A by the same Assessing Officer, when jurisdiction lay elsewhere, were under a misconception; the fresh notice issued on 22.03.2016 was treated as initiation of fresh proceedings after jurisdiction had been validly conferred on him by the order dated 21.03.2016.

Conclusions:

2.4 The notice under section 153A dated 22.03.2016 was held to be within jurisdiction; the contention that it was invalid due to the order being dispatched on 23.03.2016 was rejected.

Issue 2: Validity of assessments for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 on grounds of violation of natural justice and hurried framing of assessment

Interpretation and reasoning (AY 2013-14):

2.5 The Tribunal recorded that, after the transfer of jurisdiction back to the Assessing Officer on 21.03.2016, a fresh notice under section 153A was issued on 22.03.2016 requiring the assessee to file the return of income by 28.03.2016.

2.6 The assessee filed the return under section 153A on 29.03.2016. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 30.03.2016 ex parte under section 144, recording that no return had been filed in response to the notice under section 153A.

2.7 The Tribunal found that the assessment was thus completed within two days from the date prescribed in the notice, and one day after the actual filing of the return, without any further opportunity to the assessee to present his case. This indicated that the assessment had been framed in a hurried manner, without considering the return filed and without affording a reasonable or effective opportunity of hearing.

2.8 The Tribunal held that this sequence of events showed clear violation of principles of natural justice, and that the assessment was framed without application of mind.

Interpretation and reasoning (AY 2014-15):

2.9 For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that no notice under section 143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer after valid transfer of the case to him. It further recorded that, as in AY 2013-14, the assessment suffered from non-observance of principles of natural justice and was framed without granting a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusions:

2.10 The assessments for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 were held to be bad in law on account of violation of principles of natural justice, non-consideration of the return filed, hurried framing of the assessment, and, in the case of AY 2014-15, additionally for want of a notice under section 143(2).

Issue 3: Validity of approval granted under section 153D

Legal framework (as discussed):

2.11 The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents holding that an assessment order in search-related proceedings must be supported by a valid approval under section 153D, and that approval granted without application of mind or in a mechanical manner renders the assessment unsustainable in law.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.12 The Tribunal observed that the assessment order for AY 2013-14 was passed on 30.03.2016, just two days after the date fixed for filing of the return (28.03.2016) and one day after the assessee actually filed the return (29.03.2016). In that limited span, the Assessing Officer completed the ex parte assessment, and the approval required under section 153D was also purportedly obtained.

2.13 On these facts, the Tribunal inferred that the approval under section 153D had been granted in a mechanical manner, without consideration of the return filed and without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The same reasoning applied to the approval in relation to AY 2014-15.

2.14 Relying on cited authorities, the Tribunal held that such mechanical and non-speaking approval does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a "valid" approval under section 153D, and thus vitiates the assessment.

Conclusions:

2.15 The assessments for both assessment years were held to be invalid and unsustainable in law for want of a proper, reasoned, and duly considered approval under section 153D.

Issue 4: Whether matters should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.16 The Revenue requested restoration of the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that from the very beginning the assessee had repeatedly objected to jurisdictional irregularities and parallel proceedings under sections 153A and 153C, and had brought to the Assessing Officer's notice the transfer orders under section 127.

2.17 Despite such objections, the Assessing Officer did not timely inform the superior authority or seek remedial action, and corrective steps were taken only at the fag-end, just before the limitation period. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be faulted for these lapses, which were entirely attributable to the Revenue authorities.

2.18 Given the serious jurisdictional confusion, parallel proceedings, violation of natural justice, and mechanical approval under section 153D, the Tribunal held that the assessments were fundamentally unsustainable and should be quashed rather than remanded.

Conclusions:

2.19 The Tribunal declined to restore the matters to the Assessing Officer and instead quashed the assessment orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Issue 5: Effect of failure to issue notice under section 143(2) for AY 2014-15

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.20 The Tribunal found as a fact that for AY 2014-15, after the case was validly transferred to the concerned Assessing Officer, no notice under section 143(2) was issued. It treated this omission as an additional legal infirmity.

2.21 Coupled with the other defects-absence of adequate opportunity, hurried assessment, and invalid approval under section 153D-the Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2014-15 was vitiated in law.

Conclusions:

2.22 The assessment for AY 2014-15 was held invalid inter alia for non-issuance of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) after transfer of jurisdiction.

Overall Disposition:

2.23 The assessment orders for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 were quashed on legal grounds; the Tribunal therefore treated all issues on merits of additions as academic and did not adjudicate them. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---