TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017-18] -do- -do- 5. 3365/Del/2024 [AY 2018-19] -do- -do- 6. 3366/Del/2024 [AY 2019-20] -do- -do- 2. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the issues involved for AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20 are broadly common, interlinked and arises from the search action on the assessee and other group concerns covering the assessee. Hence, all captioned appeals have been heard together and accordingly adjudicated by this common order. 3. As per Grounds of Appeal, the assessee has challenged first appellate orders and the respective assessment orders broadly on following contours; (A) Legal objection on maintainability of additions carried out in the assessment order passed under s. 153A of the Act unconnected to incriminating material discovered in the course of search; (B) Approval accorded by the competent authority i.e. Addl. CIT in the instant assessment orders do not meet the pre-requisites contemplated under s.153D of the Act and hence the assessment framed under s. 153A based on such non est approval is a nullity at the threshold.. (C) The impugned additions and disallowances are a mere ipse dixi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n approval granted under s. 153D alleging such approval to be an omnibus approval without application of mind to the draft assessment order was also found to be without any merit. The CIT(A) did not find any substance in the contentions raised on the merits of the additions either. The CIT(A) thus addressed all the substantive issues against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted at the outset that the first appellate order and the assessment orders have been passed based on complete misconception of scheme of search assessment under s. 153A. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the approval of the Addl. CIT to the draft assessment order under s. 153D do not carry any rational probative value being accorded mechanically and flippantly. On merits of the additions, the Ld. Counsel yet again contended that there was no credible material to impeach the transactions reported. The inferences drawn against the assessee are contrary to material placed on record and thus without legal foundation. Third party evidences have been rejected arbitrarily without any attempt to travers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. 11.1 The broad contours of the appeals of the assessee hinges around following pertaining legal issues emanating in these cases: (a) Whether the assessee was justified in making the additions dehors incriminating material found in the course of search from the premises of the assessee in such unabated and concluded assessment and whether while making assessment under s. 153A of the Act, the Revenue is entitled to interfere with already concluded (and not abated) assessment passed earlier either under s. 143(1) or under s. 143(3) of the Act and not pending at the time of search in the absence of any incriminating documents unearthed as a result of search? (b) Whether such purported approvals of the Addl. CIT is to be regarded as mechanical and perfunctory and without application of mind having regard to the functions entrusted under s. 153D of the Act. 12. The first and foremost legal objection concerns propriety of additions dehors incriminating material found in the course of search from the premises of the assessee in concluded assessment. 13. It is the case of the assessee that the assessment for captioned AY 2014- 15 to AY 2017-18 are lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endorsed by the CIT(A) and such action cannot be countenanced in law both on the grounds of jurisdiction available to the AO as well as on merits. The assessee thus seeks reversal of the additions made by the AO. 14. We straight away advert to the legal challenge vociferously raised on behalf of the assessee towards propriety of approval under s. 153D to the respective draft assessment orders placed before him by the AO. 14.1 The approval memo under s. 153D has been assailed on behalf the assessee. It would thus be in fitness to extract the copy of approval for ready reference: 14.2 With reference to the approval memo extracted above, it is the contention on behalf of the assessee that the combined approval granted for various AYs under s. 153D is plagued with substantive infirmities revealing gross nonapplication of mind and the assessment orders have been granted an omnibus approval on dotted line in a cursory manner. The broad counters of the discrepancies alleged on behalf of the assessee are: (a) The AO forwarded the draft assessment orders for various AYs under appeal to the Addl.CIT vide letter dated 12.05.2021 to seek approval under s. 153D of the Act. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnical approval' which in itself is fatal without anything more. 14.4 The assessee further contends that besides gross non application of mind discernible from such combined approval memo itself, assessment orders so approved are also marred by critical lapses and mistakes which remained unnoticed by the Addl. CIT. This shows that the Addl. CIT has not even cared to read the assessment orders but left every act to the wisdom of the AO. The assessee contends that the lapses / omissions committed as noticeable from the assessment orders have direct bearing on the process of reasoning adopted to come to conclusions on the ultimate additions/ disallowances. Some of the instances as may be observed are; AY Paragraph and Page No. of the Assessment Order Description and Comments Omission that the Ld. Additional Commissioner could have asked 2014-15 Page 38 para 6(b) The respective document/summary sheet is produced herewith: No documentary/summary sheet has been reproduced. 2015-16 Page 38 para 6(b) The respective document/summary sheet is produced herewith: No documentary/ summary sheet has been reproduced. 2016-17 Page 38 para 6(b) The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement of Sh.Kapil Razdan is reproduced herewith as under: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Page 17 The extract of statement of Sh. Ramanjit Singh, Director of Anumeet Technocrats Pvt.Ltd. is reproduced as under: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Pg 21 point 7 The abstract sheet/summary sheet is produced herewith as under:- No abstract has been attached. Page 29 Point 9 The extract of statement os Sh.Kamal Kamboj is produced herewith: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Page32 point 10 The RABs and the relevant extracts of the statement of Sh.Abhay Kumar Jena, Accountant are reproduced here as under: No RABs and the relevant extracts of the statement has been attached. 15. The Ld.CIT DR appearing for revenue has however strongly defended the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act and submitted that as long as the statutory approval has been granted, a presumption would arise that all incidental acts have been performed properly and that due process of law has been followed and with proper application of mind. 16. The legal objection of transgression of requirements of approval under s. 153D is in que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Damani vs DCIT [ITA No.4061/Mum/2012] (Bom.High Court) * Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & ors. (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)[in the context of s. 157 of the Act] * M3M India Holdings vs DCIT [2019] 71 ITR (Trib.) 451 (Del.) * Vrushali Sanjay Shinde vs DCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 324 (Mum.-Trib.) * Sanjay Duggal vs ACIT [ITA No.1813/Del/2019] order dated, 19.01.2021 * PCIT vs Subhash Dabas (ITA No.243/2023) order dated 17.05.2024 * Daze Construction Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA Nos.594 to 598/Del/2023) order dated 30.09.2024 * Veena Singh vs ACIT (ITA No.294/Del/2022 for AY 2016-17) order dated 24.04.2024 * PCIT vs Tirupati Buildings & Officers Pvt.Ltd. (ITA No.447/2024) order dated 20.08.2024 16.3 It is axiomatic from the plain reading of approval memo that the Addl. CIT is in complete dark on facts while being called upon to grant his clearance to the draft assessment orders. It is evident from the CBDT Circular No.3 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008 that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it obligatory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise as per the scheme of the Act. Manifestly, the Addl. CIT, without any consideration of factual and legal position in proposed additions and without the availability of incriminating material collected in search etc. has buckled under statutory compulsion and proceeded to grant a symbolic approval to meet the statutory requirement. This approach of the Addl. CIT has ipso facto rendered the impugned approval to be a mere ritual or an empty formality to meet the statutory requirement and is thus incapable of being sustainable in law. 16.5 Besides, the Assessee has also demonstrated glaring lapses in the respective assessment orders which could easily be detected on a bare reading of such orders. Impliedly, the Addl. CIT has not even cared to read the assessment orders while entrusted with the task of approval of such orders. Furthermore, a common approval for all assessment years in complex matters of search without identifying or discussing any issue in relation to any assessment year further shows no semblance of any application of mind to any aspect of any assessment years. 16.6. The CIT(A) in para 8.2.2 to 8.2.6 of first appellate order has brushed aside the legal objecti....