s.153A search assessments challenged for lacking proper s.153D approval; joint "ritualistic" sanction led to quashing orders.

Whether assessments framed under s.153A were valid absent a proper approval under s.153D was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that a single, joint approval purportedly covering seven assessment years, without any record evidencing application of mind or meaningful interaction between the AO and the approving authority, amounted to mechanical/perfunctory "ritualistic" approval and did not satisfy the statutory safeguard in s.153D. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were vitiated in law and were quashed, resulting in the assessee's appeal being allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the mandatory prior approval under section 153D for framing search assessments was validly granted, including whether it required discernible application of mind and approval for each assessment year rather than a consolidated, perfunctory sanction.

(ii) Whether, upon finding the section 153D approval to be mechanical/ritualistic, the consequential assessments framed under section 153A stood vitiated and were liable to be quashed, rendering the remaining grounds and the Revenue's appeals infructuous.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Validity and nature of approval under section 153D (mechanical approval; single consolidated approval for multiple years)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court treated prior approval under section 153D as a mandatory condition having a direct bearing on the sustainability of assessments. It noted that judicial precedent requires the approving authority to grant approval with application of mind and in relation to each assessment year.

Interpretation and reasoning: On examining the approval dated 10/04/2021, the Court found that it covered seven assessment years through a single consolidated approval and did not contain any discussion or even minimal indication regarding the subject matter of additions or examination of the draft assessment orders. The Court characterized it as a "Performa approval" and held that it "smacks of mechanical or perfunctory approval" and reflected a symbolic/ritualistic exercise rather than a meaningful statutory safeguard. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that section 153D requires only the existence of approval and not application of mind, holding that the law, as applied through binding judicial exposition referred to in the order, does not permit rubber-stamping and requires year-wise consideration. The Court also noted the absence of any material showing communication or involvement evidencing considered approval.

Conclusions: The Court held that the approval under section 153D in the present case was mechanical/ritualistic and additionally flawed for being a single joint approval for multiple assessment years without demonstrating independent examination. It was therefore not a valid approval in the eyes of law for sustaining the ensuing assessments.

Issue (ii): Consequence of invalid section 153D approval-whether assessments under section 153A must be quashed; effect on other grounds and Revenue's appeals

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court treated compliance with section 153D as going to the "very substratum" of the assessments and consequential appellate proceedings, such that a defective approval vitiates the assessment itself.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having found the approval to be perfunctory and not in conformity with the requirement of meaningful sanction, the Court held that the assessment orders, being founded on such approval, "stand vitiated". Since the defect was foundational, the Court considered it unnecessary to adjudicate the remaining legal or factual issues raised in other grounds.

Conclusions: The Court quashed the assessment orders for the relevant years on the ground of erroneous approval under section 153D. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals challenging deletions for certain years were held to be infructuous and were dismissed.

---