TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3Ar.w.s. 143(3) of the IT act for Assessment Year 2014-15 is considered valid in law in view of Judgment in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar 163 taxmann.com 9 (High Court of Delhi) [15 May 2024]. 3.1 Whether approval granted vide Letter F. No. CIT/C.R.- 5/153D/2016-17/1098 dated 29/12/2016 is valid in terms of the provisions of Section 153D of the IT Act." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment proceedings have been initiated against the Assessee's pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) dated 15/02/2014 and subsequent dates in the case of Assessee along with other cases of AMQ Group at various residential and business premises. An approval u/s 153D has been issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range- 5, New Delhi vide office letter dated 29/12/2016 pursuant to the office letter of the ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi dated 23/12/2016. Based on the said approval granted u/s 153D of the Act dated 29/12/2016, the assessment proceedings have been initiated u/s 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act and the assessment orders have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he normal range. Further submitted that in the Central Range, the ld. JCIT is involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing and is involved with the Ld. AO from time to time while issuing various questionnaires. The ld. JCIT in Central Range also examined the seized documents in detail in respect of each Assessment Years immediately after receipt of the appraisal report and provided able assistance to the Ld. AO about the interpretation of the said seized documents while issuing questionnaires to Assessee's, examining the replies filed by the Assessee's and drawing conclusions thereon. Further submitted that the Ld. ACIT has wrote request for approval u/s 153D of the Act to JCIT on 23/12/2016 and approval has been granted on 29/12/2016, the Ld. JCIT had sufficient time to look into the documents of the assessment proceedings including seized documents, statements, draft assessment orders, etc. and after applying the mind, granted approval. Thus, submitted that it is not the case of granting approval in hurried manner. The Ld. Department's Representative has also submitted that the additional Ground c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of Section 153-A] 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 : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for "each assessment year" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase- "each assessment year" used in the language of Section 153D of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year" for "each assessee" separately. 13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC OnLineOri 992] to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:- "22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. As explained in the above cases, the mere repeating of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for seven assessment years in the case of the assessee and for seven assessment years in the case of Smt. NeetuNayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. NeetuNayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact is not in dispute before us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. NeetuNayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessee's, which information is not available before us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D provides that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de. 11. In so far as the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) relied by the Ld. Department's Representative in the case of Usha Satish Salvi (supra), in the said case, certain modifications were suggested to the A.O. in the draft assessment order, which have been carried out by the A.O. while passing the Assessment Order and the Bench therein observed that the said fact shows that approving authority approved the draft order not in mechanical manner but after due application of mind, however, in the present case, no such application of mind is forthcoming. Further in the case of Usha Satish Salvi the Ld. Department's Representative has filed affidavit of the then Assessing Officer and the approving authority who have denied the allegations raised by the Assessee. After relying on the said so called unchallenged depositions made in the Affidavit of the then A.O. and the approving authority,(which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Del....