TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dential premises on 14.09.2010. The cases of the assessee before us were centralized vide order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - II, Delhi u/s 127 of the Act on 28.12.2012. 3. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee raised an additional ground in the case of Jagat Projects Ltd for AY 2009-10 as under:- "1. That since no search u/s 132(1) of the Act has been conducted at the premises appellant company, the initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act is without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be quashed as such." 4. The ld CIT(A) forwarded this additional ground to the ld AO for his comments by seeking a remand report. The ld AO submitted his remand report on 11.09.2013 stating that - a) on verification of records, it was noticed that search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 14.09.2010 at the premises of 802, Amba Deep Building, KG Marg, New Delhi and on account of assessee's search, the common panchnama has been drawn in the name of the assessee and M/s. Jagat Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd. b) From further verification, it is noticed that 802, Amba Deep Building, KG Marg, New Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed cross objection before us in the case of Jagat Project Ltd for AY 2009-10 in CO 16/Del/2021. 7. Before us, the assessee has also raised yet another additional ground which is part of page 1 of the Paper Book-VI filed before us, which read as under:- "Additional Ground No. 1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case the approval accorded under section 153D of the Act (if any) is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without there being any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed." 8. Similar additional ground on mechanical approval given u/s 153D of the Act has been raised for the following assessees':- Sl No. Name of the assessee ITA No. Assessment Year A Sourav Aggarwal 6198/Del/2019 2009-10 B Sant Lal Agarwal 6195/Del/2017 2009-10 C Satish Kumar Pawa 540/Del/2020 2009-10 D Sudha Pawa 1211/Del/2021 2009-10 E Sudha Pawa legal heir of Late Ms. Swati Pawa 541/Del/2020 2009-10 F Sudha Pawa legal heir of Late Ms. Swati Pawa ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were granted by one letter does not mean that it was not granted for each assessment year. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees' for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year", then it would render the requirement of passing an order for "each assessment year" with prior approval u/s 153D of the Act, nugatory. Therefore, the obligation on the approving authority is to verify the draft assessment order of each assessment year together with the related seized document to ascertain whether it complies with law as well as the procedure laid down. Hence it is established that the action of the ld Additional CIT in granting common approval for all the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A." 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord approval mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible for the said authority to 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. 13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin & Co. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146/292 Taxman 566/454 ITR 312/SCC OnLine Ori 992 to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:- *** 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reas, 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 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 judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration." 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we have no hesi....