TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was re-opened in terms of the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.06.2021. The said notice was held as the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act by following the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal and order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, was passed on 31.08.2023 wherein AO alleged that income to the tune of INR 3,37,51,414/- has escaped the assessment and accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.08.2024 was issued to the assessee. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court who vide its order dated 09.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.1431/22024 has quashed the notice issued u/s. 148 by holding the same as barred by limitation. In the meantime, based on the documents found and seized during the course of search carried out in the case of Bakshi Group (Oriental Group) on 29.11.2019, the AO of the searched person i.e. Oriental Group has recorded his satisfaction that the documents found from the possession of Oriental Group pertained to assessee in terms of his satisfaction note dated 16.02.2022. Based on this satisfaction note, notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 07.05.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce thereto is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT has erred in passing the impugned order, which arises from an assessment order that is itself invalid, passed without jurisdiction, and non-existent in the eyes of law. 3.1 That the Hon'ble PCIT has failed to appreciate that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C for the impugned AY were invalid, as admittedly, as per the satisfaction note, no incriminating material relating to the impugned AY was found during search. in the absence of such material, which is a sine qua non for invoking section 153C, the consequential assessment order is void ab initio. Therefore, such an order, being non-existent in the eyes of law, cannot be subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble PCIT has failed to appreciate that in the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the impugned assessment year found during the course of the search, the assessment under section 153C of the Act could not include any addition based on other material or information. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-judicial to the interest of the Revenue. Additional grounds of appeal so raised by the assessee read as under:- (i) "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax grossly erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of an assessment order dated 29.03.2023 which had been passed after obtaining mandatory prior approval under section 153D of the Act. It is a settled position of law that once an order has been subjected to the rigours of approval under section 153D, the same cannot be revised under section 263 unless a clear finding is recorded that such approval itself was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the absence of such a finding, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. (ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing the impugned order which arises from an assessment order that itself is invalid and without jurisdiction as the same has been passed under section 153C of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D of the Act by the Range head i.e. Adl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range 7, Delhi. Ld. AR submits that the jurisdiction assumed by Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 is fundamentally flawed as the approval u/s. 153D is not a mere administrative formality but statutory safeguard, forming an integral part of assessment proceedings under chapter XIV of the Act. He submits that unless such approval itself is withdrawn or held to be invalid by the competent forum, Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act to indirectly nullify the same. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Devender Kumar Gupta vs PCIT reported in 166 taxmann.com 95 and further in the case of Alankit Associates P. Ltd. vs PCIT in ITA No.2051/Del/2024. Ld. AR therefore, prayed that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 11. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR submits that proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act were abated and stood merged in the proceedings u/s. 153C subsequently initiated in the case of assessee after recording necessary satisfaction on the basis of documents found and seized during the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s pending. Pending this appeal, the ld PCIT sought to revise the order passed by the ld AO dated 31.03.2022 by treating the order passed by the ld AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Admittedly, the assessment order sought to be revised was framed by the ld AO u/s. 153C of the Act on 31.03.2022 and this assessment was framed after obtaining the prior approval of the ld Additional CIT, Central Range-7, New Delhi vide letter F. No. ADDL.CIT/CR-7/153D/2021-22/1759 dated 30.03.2022. This approval obtained from the ld Addl. CIT was not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by the ld PCIT in his revision order u/s. 263 of the Act. The ld AR before us argued that the ld PCIT in order to revoke his revision jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act should also hold even the approval proceeding granted by the ld Addl. CIT u/s. 153D of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Devender Kumar Gupta Vs. PCIT in ITA Nos. 1890 to 1893/Del/2024 for AYs. 2015-16 to 2018-19 dated 30.08.2024 in support of his contentions. We have gone through the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. For passing any order under Sections 143(3) & 153A of the Act, prior approval of Joint Conders Sections required under Section 153A of the Act, or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be. Therefore, once prior approval had already been taken by the Assessing Officer and accepted the return submitted by the assessee, then the same authority cannot exercised power under Section 263 of the Act to reverse the order of Assessing Officer." 10. The judgement which the Id. DR has relied is not applicable as in that judgement, this aspect was not actually examined at all and only for the reason that there also the impugned assessment order was passed u/s. 153A of the Act, does not lay down a view contrary to the one we are relying above. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to allow grounds No.2 and 3 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17; and ground No.3 in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders in respective years are quashed." 5. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the revision order pa....