TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BDT Circular No.19/2019 Dtd. 14.08.19 applicable w.e.f. 01.10.19. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, in the absence of any DIN on demand notice U/s.156 Dtd.31.12.19, the impugned demand notice and consequentially the asstt. order Dtd.31.12.19 are nonest and unsustainable in view of non compliance of the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 Dtd. 14.08.19 applicable w.e.f. 01.10.19. 3. That in the absence of DIN in the communication Dtd.29.12.19 by Addl. CIT to A.O. granting approval U/s. 153D, the approval as well as the resultant asstt. orders U/s 143(3) are nonest and unsustainable in law in view of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 Dtd.14.08.19 applicable w.e.f. 01.10.19. 4 That in view of the approval U/s.153D by Addl. CIT being mechanical and of without application of mind, apart from without providing an opportunity of hearing, the impugned approval U/s.153D and consequential asstt. order are unsustainable in law. 5. That under the facts and circumstances and in view of the explanations and evidences filed, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merits in sustaining addition of Rs. 34,64,594/- U/s.69A for seized jewellery as unexplained of assessee and other f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny manner that the approval was granted in mechanical manner without application of mind because in search cases an Addl. CIT is well aware about assessment of assessment proceedings relevant issues of different assessee, nature and context of the seized material in the light of the facts that as per CBDT guideline copy of approval shared by wherein with both the Ld. AO and joint CIT and as per the prevailing practice and guidelines the approving authority has good idea of issues involved in particular case before i.e. and before the cases sent to him for approval. 6. The Ld. AR in support of his submission, relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar ITA No.285/2024 dated 15.05.2024 of which relevant to para 17 and 18 which reproduced as under: - 17. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court categorically held that statutory approval given by a quasi-judicial authority without due application of mind as contemplated in section 153D of the Act would be fatal to the entire search assessment proceedings. The relevant operative part of the said order is reproduced below: - "12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The Tribunal, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of mind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said error. 12.1 More particularly, the Tribunal notes that all that was looked at by the ACIT, was the draft assessment order. 13. In another words, it was emphasised that the approval was granted without examining the assessment record or the search material. The relevant observations made in this behalf by the Tribunal in the impugned order are extracted hereafter: "17.1 However, in the present case, we have no hesitation in stating that there is complete non-application of mind by the Learned Addl. CIT before granting the approval. Had there been application of mind, he would not have approved the draft assessment order, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the ld. JCIT in the instant case before us in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, thereby 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 Court; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Delhi High Court) referred to supra. Hence, we find lot of force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR in support of the additional grounds raised for all assessment years under consideration before us for all the assessees. Accordingly, the Additional Grounds raised by all the assessees for all the assessment years under consideration are hereby allowed. 16. Since, pursuant to the allowing of the additional grounds, the entire search assessment framed in the hands of all the assessees is to be declared illegal and bad in law, the other legal grounds and grounds on merits raised by the assessees for various assessment years need not be gone into as adjudication of the same would be merely academic in nature and, hence, they are left open. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the ....