TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has filed the cross appeal for assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 4166/Del/2019. Since common and identical issue has been involved in all these appeals, hence, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1843/Del/2019 (AY 2011-12) is taken up as lead case, hence, facts are narrated from the said appeal. ITA NO. 1843/DEL/2019 (AY 2011-12) 3. The Assessee has filed this appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal-27), Delhi dated 25.02.2019, relating to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A) is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, at the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee has reiterated the contents of application dated 27.11.2024 filed by the assessee for admission of additional grounds of appeal which are in legal in nature, in the instant case and requested to admit the same in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). Following are the additional grounds :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the approval granted under section 153D of the Act through a common approval for separate assessment orders passed u/s. for AY 2014-15 is considered valid in law in view of decision on ITAT, Delhi in the case 153A for AY 2008-09 to 2013-14 and u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act is considered v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-09 to 2014-15 by way of single letter was without application of mind and mechanical in nature. The JCIT in its approval u/s 153D of the IT Act has failed to mention the assessment year wise income returned and assessed by the AO and furthermore, the JCIT also failed to consider any seized material which have been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee. A perusal of the letter dated 29.12.2016 of approval would show that the JCIT has simply mentioned that : "The above draft assessment order u/s 153D as proposed is hereby accorded approval" 6.1 It is further submitted that it is clearly establish that JCIT has given approval in a mechanical manner without verifying the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year". We further note that AO sent a common letter for approval u/s. 153D of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 to the JCIT on 29.12.2016 and the JCIT granted approval for all the assessment years from AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 by a common letter dated 29.12.2016 i.e. on the same day. It is observed that the approval granted by the JCIT u/s 153D of the IT Act on the same day for all the assessment years from AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 by way of single letter was without application of mind and mechanical in nature. It is undisputed that the JCIT in its approval u/s 153D of the IT Act has failed to mention the assessment year wise income returned and assessed by the AO and furthermore, the JCIT also failed to consider any seized ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been relied upon by the AO while framing the draft assessment orders in the case of the assessee has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the JCIT has rendered approval be a mere formality and cannot be countenanced in law. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that approval granted by JCIT is not valid in the eyes of law, hence, deserves to be quashed. It is apparently clear that Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has given approval which is purely mechanical and without application of mind. In such cases, the assessment looses its validity, hence, the same deserve to be quashed. The case laws refereed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are germane and supports ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have perused and appraised the records of 85 cases in a single day. It was explicitly held that the authority granting approval has to apply its mind for 'each assessment year' for 'each assessee' separately. * A similar view taken by High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. Anuj Bansal [IT Appeal 368/2023], it was reiterated that the exercise of powers u/s 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the above-mentioned decisions is that grant of approval u/s 153D cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. * In the present case, the Tribunal has specifically noted that the approv....