TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r AY 2015-16 in the case of Manoj Kumar Chaudhary as lead case. 3. The assessee has taken the following revised and additional grounds of appeal :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 3,22,51,009/- on account of Bogus long term capital gain despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 15,60,782/- on account of exempt income despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 14,65,000/- on account of cash deposit in banks despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition Rs. 14,65,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the same may be admitted in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC). 5. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the additional grounds of appeal being purely legal issue. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record by both the parties. We observed that the issues raised by the assessee in additional grounds go to the root of the matter challenging the jurisdictional issue. In the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC, Limited vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we are inclined to admit the additional grounds and take up the same for adjudication herein below. 7. First we take up legal issues raised by the assessee in the additional grounds of appeal. 8. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the approval taken by the lower authorities u/s 153D is mechanical and the approval for section 153D of the Act has to be separate for each assessment year and cannot be a common approval.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18/2629 2016-17 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2629 4 Munesh Devi 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 2016-17 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2598 5 Manoj Kumar Chaudhary 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2619 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2619 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2619 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2628 9 Aashiyana Infratec Pvt. Ltd. 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 2016-17 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2614 10 Airwil Infra Ltd. 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2615 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2615 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2615 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17 Ampcor Propmart P Ltd 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 2016-17 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2613 18 Sanjay Kumar HUF 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2594 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2594 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2594 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Meerut/Approval-153D/2017-18/2594 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Jt. CIT/Central Range-Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per contra, ld. DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below and objected to the submissions of the ld. AR. He submitted that the approval u/s 153D of the Act is administrative approval. The procedure to approval process has no relevance to the assessee and his proceedings. 12. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have especially perused the details of approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act and the case laws cited by the ld. AR of the assessee. 13. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Central vs. Siddharth Gupta (supra) has decided the similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) (supra) and Hon'ble High Court held as under :- "The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical exercise, without application of independent mind by the Approving Authority on the material placed before it and the reasoning given in the assessment order. It is admitted by Sri Gaur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under :- "10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states 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 that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration." 15. We also find that ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s Millenium Vinimay (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (supra) has dealt the similar legal issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced as under :- "15. There are several decisions, which supports the view that approval granted by the superior authority in mechanical manner defeats the very purpose of obtaining approval u/s 153D of the Act. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) which has been approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently, reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under :- "1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 19th August, 2015. 2. Following question was argued before us for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order has been submitted on 31.12.2010. Hence there is no much time left to analyze the issue of draft order on merit. Therefore, the draft order is being approved as it is submitted. Approval to the above said draft order is granted u/s 153D of the I. T. Act, 1961." 7. In plain terms, the Additional CIT recorded that the draft order for approval under Section 153D of the Act was submitted only on 31st December, 2010. Hence, there was not enough time left to analyze the issues of draft order on merit. Therefore, the order was approved as it was submitted. Clearly, therefore, the Additional CIT for want of time could not examine the issues arising out of the draft order. His action of granting the approval was thus, a mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft order as it is without any independent application of mind on his part. The Tribunal is, therefore, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the approval was invalid in eye of law. We are conscious that the statute does not provide for any format in which the approval must be granted or the approval granted must be recorded. Nevertheless, when the Additional CIT while granting the approval recorded that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee whereas the provision of Section 153D of the Act stipulates conditions that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. It further appears from the approval dated 08.06.2018 that the same was a common and composite order whereas the Addl. Commissioner is required to verify and approve that each of assessment year is complied with as well as procedural laid down under the Act. Such fact clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi. Thus granting approval for all the common years instead of approval under Section 153B for each assessment year separately de horse the rules. The said approval is found to have been given in a mechanical and routine manner. We find that the order issuing authority has not discharged its statutory duties cast upon him even by assigning cogent reasons ....