TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee that the assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, illegal and deserved to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment proceedings initiated and consequently assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act by the learned AO is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any warrant of authorization for search under section 132 of the Act executed in the name of the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the order passed by the AO without obtaining valid prior approval under section 153D of the Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the fact that the AO has not concluded the independent enquiry conducted under section 133(6)/131 of the Income Tax Act to the logical end. 12. Without prejudice to the above, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the value of the assets to the extent of Rs. 31,60,00,000/-which has been liquidated and reduced to NIL as no longer receivable would be a business loss to the assessee and eligible to be set-off against the addition made under section 68 of the Act. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29-09-2013 declaring income at Rs 7,880/-. Subsequently a search and seizure operations were conducted on 29-12-2015 at the residential as well as office premises of Mapsko Group. A notice u/s 153A of the Act on 15-10-2016 issued to the assessee to file the return of income for A.Y. 2013- 14. In the response of the notice the assessee company filed his reply on 21-09-2017 requesting to treat the return of income filed u/s 139(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RIVATE LIMITED NEW DELHI AND OTHERS VERSUS AC CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 NEW DELHI 2024 (1) TMI 793 held that 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied up hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has been granted the Id. JCIT in the instant case before us in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, there making the approval proceedings by a high ranking authority, an empty ritual. Such an approval has neither been mandated by the provisions of the Act nor endorsed by the decisions of the Hon'ble Orissa High Co Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Delhi High Court) referred to sum Hence, we find lot of force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR in support of the additional ground raised for all assessment years under consideration before us for all the assessee's. Accordingly, Additional Grounds raised by all the assessee's for all the assessment years under consideration are her allowed." Further reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: -DELHI HIGH COURT in the case of PR. COMMISSIONER OF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arks regarding the administrative orders, the Hon. Supreme Court has given many comprehensive judgements, which are enclosed and the relevant portions/parts are quoted as under:- (i) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate, dated 17 September, 2019, AIR 2019 SC 4517, 2019 (10) SCC 738. "...................14. In the present case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have arrived at a finding that such a sanction was, in fact, granted. We will examine the correctness of the said finding of fact at a subsequent stage. However, before doing that, we propose to examine the scope of the powers of the High Court of judicial review of an administrative action. Though, there are a catena of judgments of this Court on the said issue, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 lays down the basic principles which still hold the field. Paragraph 77 of the said judgment reads thus: "77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concerned should be :- 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative action. 31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court, it is only an obvious face of the record, as held by this Court in misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded the provision of a Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If statutory rule is reasonably capable of two on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of or more constructions and one construction if Certiorari 32. The sweep of power under A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of the authorities are found not to be in the public interest. We ask the question to us, as to whether directing re-tendering by inviting fresh tenders after giving wide publicity at the National level so as to obtain the best price for the public property, would be in the public interest or as to whether awarding contract to a bidder in the tender process where it is found that there was no adequate publicity and also a possibility of there being a cartel of bidders, would be in the public interest. We are the considered view that the decision of the Commissioner which is set aside by the High Court is undoubtedly in larger public commissioner would ensure that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition. By no stretch of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational, Which parameters only could have permitted the High Court to interfere. Interference by the High Court when none of such parameters exist, in our view, was totally improper. On the contrary, we find that it is the High Court, which has failed to take into consideration relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of ] [ Inserted by Act 18 of 2005, Section 47 (w.r.e.f. 1.6.2003).] [sub-section (1) of section 153-A] [ Substituted by Act 18 of 2008, Section 39, for " section 153-A" (w.r.e.f. 1.6.2007).]Substituted by Act 18 of 2008, Section 39, for " section 153-A" (w.r.e.f. 1.6.2007). [or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153-B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. ] [ Inserted by Act 22 of 2007, Section 50 (w.e.f. 1.6.2007).] 11. We observed that the assessment order was framed by the AO u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act with the prior approval of the Joint commissioner. The joint commissioner of Income Tax has granted the single approval for the seven years A.Y. i.e 2010-11 to 2016-17 by the letter no F. No. JCIT(CR)/GGN/2017-18/951 in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. In view of above observation and respectfully following the judicial precedent, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act, granted by Learned JCIT in the instant case was mechanical manner and without due application of mind. We declared the assessment as bad in law. Accor....