TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the approval granted under section 153D for the search assessments was mechanical and without application of mind, and whether the consequential assessment orders were sustainable.
Analysis: The approval letters were common and composite, granted on the same day as the request, and did not disclose any year-wise scrutiny or independent consideration of the draft assessment orders, seized material, or appraisal report. The statutory scheme of section 153D requires prior approval for each assessment year and the approval functions as a jurisdictional safeguard against arbitrary completion of search assessments. On the facts, the majority found no record showing that the approving authority had examined the relevant material or applied an independent mind before granting approval. The contrary view, which treated the approval as valid because of departmental consultation and the surrounding assessment process, was rejected by the majority.
Conclusion: The approval under section 153D was held to be mechanical and invalid, and the assessments founded on such approval were quashed.
Dissenting Opinion: The dissent held that the approval process reflected continuous departmental consultation, that the assessee had not shown any material error or absence of examination, and that the approvals were valid in law. It therefore would have upheld the assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
