TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in absence of incriminating material. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the L4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 26,89,337/- is against the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) 3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,55,207/- is bad in law since the 1ª floor of the clinic/nursing home is used by the partners of the firm, who are doctors by the profession. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is plain arbitrary and purely based on conjectures and surmises and hence bad in law and liable to be set-aside and quashed. 5. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as no due and proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee therefore deserves to be set-aside and quashed. 6. The humble assessee, craves for le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein, various case laws have been referred and also relied on the case laws other than the paper books, whereby the legal issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee. Ld. counsel drew our attention towards the decision viz Hon'ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Central vs, Sidharth Gupta reported in 450 ITR 534 which was up held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 43280/2023 dated 09-08-2024 & ITAT Delhi Bench decision JSS Buildcon Private Limited vs DCIT ITA No. 4810/Del/2024 & 4690/Del/2024 and Rita Khanna Vs DCIT ITA NO. 928/Del?2024 and submitted that by following the ratio of the aforesaid case laws, legal issue involved in the instant appeal may be allowed. 7. Ld. DR, submitted that the matter should have decided on merit. Reliance has been placed the case Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors Civil Appeal No. 2398 of 2008 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities. In the case of Zerita Ashlen Rocha vs Ann Marry Varghese the Hon'ble Kerla High Court held that courts should make ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of "each assessment year" falling within six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years), referred to in Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 153A. The proviso to Section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such sis assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153AL13 and section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under Section 153A. 13. We further find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCTT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) has decided the similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under :- "15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (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 aboveme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above. 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through 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 judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration." 12. We also find that ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s Mille....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of relevant material record. 5. The learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the question of legality of the approval was raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Additional CIT had granted the approval The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the same is invalid. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the both sides and having perused the documents on record, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The Additional CIT while granting an approval for passing the order of assessment, had made following remarks: "To. The DCIT(OSD)1, Mumbai Subject: Approval u/s 153D of draft order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 1534 in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Nandan Damani for A.Y. 2007-08 reg. Ref: No. DCIT (OSD)1/CR7/Appr/2010-11 dt. 31.12.2010 As per this office letter dated 20.12.2010, the Assessing Officers were asked to submit the draft orders for approval u/s 153D on or before 24.12.2010. However, this draft 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. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment orders of various assessment years as a consequence of such inexplicable approval lacks legitimacy. Consequently, the impugned assessments orders in the captioned appeals are non-est and a nullity and hence the same are quashed. 18. In view of prima facie merits found in the legal objections raised in the Addl. Grounds of the Assessees, we do not consider it expedient to look into the aspects on merits of additions/disallowance as the legal objections on sanction granted under Section 153D of the Act has been answered in favour of the Assessee. Thus the other Grounds raised in the Appeals of the Assessee in both the Appeals have rendered infructuous, which do not need any separate adjudication. 19. In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos 294/Del/2022 and ITA No. 295/Del/2022 are allowed. 11. Upon considering the entire aspect of the matter, we find that the approval has been granted not separately for each assessment year for the 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 Commissione....