TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010 was conducted in Monnet Group of Cases. During search operation at the premises of the group, certain documents belonging to M/s. Rameshwaram Steel and Power Ltd. were found and seized. Case of assessee company was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi, vide letter dated 04.03.2011. All the papers and documents pertaining to the assessee were examined and after satisfying that the provisions of section 153C of the Act, notice under Section 153C was issued on 21.05.2012 for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Vide letter dated 14.09.2012, assessee was reminded to comply with the notices issued. In response to notices, Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee company filed letter dated 08.10.2012 challenging notice under Section 153C of the Act for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11. Satisfaction recorded under Section 153C of the Act was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 18.10.2012. Notice under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire dated 08.11.2012 was issued. The Learned Authorised Representative of assessee company vide letter dated 22.11.2012 challenged notice under Section 153C of the Act. The Learned Authorised Representative vide lette....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his regard: * ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s. Skylark hatcheries Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2545/Del/2023, dated 27.02.2025. "8. The same view is expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi high court in other cases relied upon by the Id. AR. The Hon'ble Orissa High court in the case of Serajjudin & Co reported in [2023] SCC Online Ori 992 which has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023 under identical circumstances has held the approval granted as invalid. Thus by respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar, reported supra, and also in the case of Serajjudin & Co, supra, the approval granted in this case is without application of mind and consequently the assessment order is annulled. The ground of appeal No. 5 of the assessee is allowed" * ITAT Delhi in the case of Pawan Kumar Midha Vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central), 2025 (4) TMI 142, dated 21.03.2025 * ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s Confident Distributors Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-1, Faridabad, 2025 (3) TMI 1217, dated 07.03.2025 * IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....INGH BHATIA AND AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8 NEW DELHI. 7. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities Below and submitted that it cannot be disbelieved that Additional CIT hold the concurrent jurisdiction and that the assessment is a continuous process involving administrative as well statutory roles being donned by the Addl. CIT. And it is incumbent on the approving authority to examine and monitor the assessments which can't be denied if the same is not reduced in writing at every point of time till the finalization of the assessment. The approval of the approving authority underlines that he has examined the assessment records, relevant copies of seized documents and the relevant issues arising from the material on record judiciously in independent manner by way of due application of mind. The appellant has to positively prove that there is a case of non-application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Relevant seized documents in a case are always part of the assessment records as per practice, and requirement of the work. They are not kept ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the order in IA 3123/2018 in OS 125/2018 of II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam dated 23.06.2022, has held that the "Courts should endeavor to dispose of a case on merits rather than on default." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiyana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors on 09.06.2010 in Civil Appeal NO. 2395 of 2008 also held that: "......After all, justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold. Both sides had tried to argue the matter on merits but we refrain ourselves from touching the merits of the matter as that can best be done by the Executing Court which had denied an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and to prove the issues so formulated. In our opinion, ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and matter is emitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of appellant's objections filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee and others as per appellant/assessee is as below: Assessee AY Approval Date Assessment Order date Rameshwaram Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. 2005-06 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2006-07 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2007-08 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2008-09 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2009-10 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2010-11 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2011-12 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd. 2005-06 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2006-07 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2009-10 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 Pavitra Commercials Limited 2005-06 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2006-07 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2007-08 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2008-09 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2009-10 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2010-11 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2011-12 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 Pace Enterprises Private Limited 2005-06 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2006-07 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 2007-08 28.03.2013 28.03.2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) held as under:- "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 subsection (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 said decision are reproduced as under:- "13. It was held therein that if an approval has been granted by the Approving Authority in a mechanical manner without application of mind then the very purpose of obtaining approval under Section 153D of the Act and mandate of the enactment by the legislature will be defeated. For granting approval under Section 153D of the Act, the Approving Authority shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner 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 reverified 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 words of the statute, or mere "rubber stamping" of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like "seen" or "approved" will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in the context of section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply to section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (i) the Assessing Officer should submit th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Neetu Nayyar. 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 approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together." 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 t....