AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t holding so. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no notice u/s 143(2) was issued within the stipulated statutory time and accordingly the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. c. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 2,31,41,75,814/- made by the assessing officer as alleged unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the various alleged adverse inferences drawn / reasons given by the assessing officer / CIT(A) for making / confirming additions are erroneous and not sustainable in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approval are self explanatory and does not require any elaboration to establish the fact of perfunctory approval. The ld. Counsel thus contended that the assessment order so passed on the basis of a perfunctory approval can not be granted sanction of law. 6.2 The Ld. Counsel thereafter adverted to other challenges raised as per grounds of appeal which we shall deal with in succeeding paragraphs, if so required. 7. The Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand relied upon the order of CIT(A). 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and material placed on record and case laws cited. The legal objection of transgression of requirements of approval under Section 153D is in question which has the effect on the very substratum of the assessment and appellate proceedings. We thus require to address ourselves into such mainstay issue at the outset. 9. We shall straight away advert to the communication between the Assessing Officer and the JCIT being the competent authority for the purposes of approval contemplated under Section 153D of the Act. 9.1 For the sake of convenience, the communication exchanged between the AO and the JCIT are extracted below. 9.1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompletion of the assessment. Subject to these broad observations, the approval was granted vide approval memo F. NO. JCIT/Central Range/Meerut/S&S/153D/2016-17/1477 dated 31/12/2016. By implication, the JCIT, while granting the approval, was not privy to seized material, appraisal report etc. and left the onus of varied compliances to the wisdom of the AO. 9.3 From the perusal of the communication made by the AO seeking approval under Section 153D and the approval given under Section 153D thereon by the JCIT, it is seen that the AO has forwarded the draft assessment orders for as many as 5 assessment orders in the case of the assessee along with multiple assessment orders in the case of remaining 17 assessee in one go on the last day of the expiry of limitation for carrying out assessment under Section 153A for endorsement and approval of designated authority i.e. JCIT to meet the legal requirement imposed under Section 153D of the Act. The JCIT i.e. the competent authority, in turn, was forced to grant a combined and consolidated approval for all assessees named therein for all assessment years in promptu on the same day of receipt of the order i.e. on 31/12/2016. It is a class....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....approval is in the realm of an abstract approval of draft assessment orders and consequently suffered from total non-application of mind. (ii) approval granted hurriedly in a spur involving voluminous assessments spanning over 5 assessment years admittedly a symbolic exercise to meet the requirement of law. The JCIT himself has made such fact abundantly clear without any demur. (iii) The red flag raised by JCIT and unambiguous assertions of the JCIT himself that the approval granted is in the nature of "technical approval" and he is having very little time at his disposal for proper examination of facts of the case or for related enquiries says it all and has brought quietus to any different possibility or interpretation. The approving authority himself has thus discredited its own approval. (iv) abject failure in drawing satisfaction on objective material while giving a combined approval for 5 assessments and also without evaluating the nuances of each assessment year involved. The combined approval of several assessee combinedly for multiple assessment years runs contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sapna ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO. The approval granted under section 153D of the Act enjoins due application of mind and if the same is subjected to judicial scrutiny, it should stand for itself and should be self-defending. There are long line of judicial precedents which provides guidance in applying the law in this regard. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in the instant case, the approving authority has granted a mere 'technical approval' by his own express admission in departure to a substantive approval expected in law. The JCIT rather himself fairly recorded his objections to the fag end supply of draft assessment orders by the AO in bulk for several assessees involving multiple assessment years and effectively claimed that he had no opportunity to peruse the relevant underlying material for effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed to sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3013/2016 Cerral Range, Aayakar Blan Bhainsa Ground, Me Sub: Drah assessment orders uis 153A/53C140) of the LT. Act, 1961 in Apple Group 10.0.5. (1/11/2014-Approval as 1530 of the 1.7. Act, 1961-regarding Please find herewith revised list of cases for your kind approval u's 153D of the IT Act. 0 St. No Name of the assessee PAN 1 Sh Narender Kumar Gore. AEKPO6296A A. Yrs. 2009-10 to 2015-16 12 Sw Shalco Narender Kumar Gane. 1 AADPG1563F 2009-10 to 2015-16 Sh. Yarender Kumar Garg. ABIPG9791P 2009-10 to 2015-16 Ser. Madhs Carg ABIPG97920 2009-10 2015-16 15 St. Puikit Garz AJEPGS760A 2009-10 to 2015-16 Smt. Ruchi Gart AALGISTIM 2009-10 15 2015-16 Sh. Pawan Kumar Gara AAHPG132G 2009-10 to 2015-16 M/s Apple Industries Lid AAGCA996ON 2009-10 to 2015-16 Mis Ninnan Stelco Pvt. Ltd AACCN18420 2009-10 10 2015-16 10 Mis M. G. Merallav Pvt Lod AAGCM5789D 2011-12 to 2015-16 Η M/s Promart Retail India Pvt. Ltd AAFCP8743B 2009-10 to 2015-16 12 M's Apple Sponge & Power Limit AAFCA1965L 2009-10 ID 2015-16 × ×• M/s Apple Metal In....