TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ground No.1 is as under: " That, the assessment order passed u/s.153A(b) of the Act is not sustainable in view of the fact that the approval u/s.153D had been granted by the ld Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax prior to completion of the assessment proceedings which is not in accordance with the law and, therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed." 3. Ld A.R. submitted that in this case, the Addl. CIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar issued order dated 27.3.2015 stating subject " approval of search assessment order u/s.153D -Regarding". Copy of this order has been placed at pages 77 to 89 of APB. Ld A.Rl. further pointed out that in the said order dated 27.3.2015, Addl. CIT pointed out some deficiencies in the case of present assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 in paragraph 5-6 of the order. Ld A.R. further drew our attention to the copy of the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer dated 30.3.2015, wherein, the AO has issued a notice along with questionnaire/show cause for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 including present assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, for which, the AO has raised queries for six years including assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt paras 6, 24, 25 & 26 of the said order in the case of Smt. Gitarani Panda, reported in (2018) 194 TTJ (CTC) 915 and submitted that in similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has held that the alleged approval letter dated 27.3.2015 of the Addl. CIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar does not constitute the approval which is envisaged by the provisions of section 153D of the Act. Thus, following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Akil Gulamali Somki vs ITO in IT appeal (L) No. 1416 of 2012 order dated 15.1.2013, it was held that the impugned assessment order u/s.153D of the Act is void and bad in law. Ld A.R. submitted that the Tribunal has allowed the grounds of the assessee quashing the impugned assessment order in the case of Gitarani Panda (supra). 5. Replying to above, ld CIT DR drew our attention towards written submission pages 1 to 5 and submitted that in the case of Akil Gulamali Somji (supra), the ITAT Pune has passed order on different facts and circumstances and in that case, the AO while framing assessment u/s.153C of the Act, had failed to obtain the necessary approval u/s.153D of the Act but in the present case, the Addl. CIT, Range-1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order U/S.153A dated 31.03.2015 stood at Rs. 3,44,785/- whereas the draft order seeking approval showed assessed income of Rs. 1,31,000/- only. On the other hand, in the present-case, the total income as per draft* order and final assessment order stand at same figure (Rs. 2,60,39,740/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2,83,94,150/- for AY 2012-13). Hence the A.O. was not required to again seek approval of the^ Supervisory Officer. d) The facts of the present case do show that the Supervisory Officer (Addl. CIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar) has duly applied his mind; he has gone through the records; he has analyzed the statements made during the search as well as the seized documents; he has also analyzed the audited balance sheets/profit & loss account for the relevant years. e) It is clear from the plain language of section 153D that the AO is only required to take prior approval of Supervisory officer (Addl./Jt. CIT) before passing of assessment order U/s. l53A r.w.s. 143(3)/144. This requirement has been fulfilled in the present case. It is a cardinal principle that the words of a Statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subject matter of adjudication. It is further submitted that the recording of sanction or approval is not required to be made in a particular manner. What could be challenged before the Tribunal is want of sanction and for that the reliance is placed on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 3874/Mum/2015 for the proposition that the Approval under section 153D of the Act is an Administrative procedure which requires to be complied with by the officers who arc discharging the assessment functions (para-16 to 18 on pages 16 to 20 of the appellate order), h) The Judgement of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani (88 taxmann.com 383) is distinguishable on facts and circumstances. In para-10 of the decision (on page-3), it has been mentioned that the Addl. CIT, Central Range-7 had asked the AO to submit the draft orders for approval u/s. 153D on or before 24.12.2010. However, the draft order was submitted on 31.12.2010 thereby he was left with no time to analyze the various issues of draft order. With these comments, the draft order was approved as it was submitted by the A.O. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lidate any part of the assessment and thus the defect, if any, existing previously would be completely cured." 6. Reiterating the written submission, ld CIT DR submitted that in the case of Smt. Gita Rani Panda (supra), the order has been passed on different facts and circumstances and further submitted that in the case of Smt. Gita Rani Panda (supra) and Smt. Manjusmita Das (supra), the assessments were made on small amount of taxable income, whereas in the present appeals, the amount of taxable income is same as per draft order and final assessment order, therefore, the preposition rendered by ITAT in the case of Gita Rani Panda(supra) cannot be applied to the present case blindly. 7. Ld CIT DR also submitted that from the plan language of section 153D of the Act, it is clear that the AO is only required to take prior approval of Supervisory Officer (Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT) before passing of assessment order u/s.153A r.w.s 143(3)/144 of the Act and this requirement has been fulfilled in the present case. Ld CIT DR submitted that approval under section 153D by the Supervisory Authority is merely an administrative order and no civil or penalty consequences flow from such an order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitting final assessment order along with relevant assessment records, thus, there was not valid approval as per mandate of section 153D of the Act. Therefore, the contentions of ld CIT DR are misplaced and not sustainable. 10. Ld AR pointed out that by order dated 27.3.2015, ld Addl. CIT has considered total 28 nos. of cases, which are listed at page 1 & 2 of the said order at Sl. No. 1 to 7, the case of Smt. Manjusmita Dash have been listed at 15-21, the case of Smt. Gita Rani Panda(supra) have been listed and, thereafter at Sl. No. 22 to 28, the case of the block period from assessment year 2007-08 to 2013-14 in the case of the assessee have been listed, which includes the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 listed at Sl. No. 26 and 27. Therefore, the propositions rendered by ITAT, Cuttack in the case of Gita Rani Panda (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. Merely because the amount of total taxable income is different, which ought to be different in different cases on different assessment years, on different assessee, the categorical finding of the Tribunal cannot be ignored and kept aside, therefore, the contentions of ld CIT DR are not justified and stands on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estions made by him in the order dated 27.3.2015. It is also noted that notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued by the AO on 30.3.2015, in pursuant to the direction of the Addl.CIT in the order dated 27.3.2015, copy of which is placed in paper book at pages 1 to 3, to explain/reconcile/justify in the respective assessment years as under: 2011-12 Please reconcile the investments shown at Rs. 3,26,68,955/- as on 31.3.2011 with those as on 31.3.2010 at Rs. 4,60,00,000/- and explain why disallowance u/s.14A should not be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Please justify the reasons of abrupt increase of the total sales of 14.76% in comparison to that in the previous year and abrupt increase in the claim of expenses viz. carriage inwards, other manufacturing expenses & selling and distribution expenses. 2012-13 Please justify through documentary evidence the abrupt increase in expenses under the heads commission, salary & wages, staff welfare, other manufacturing expenses, misc. expenses and directors' remuneration." However, immediately after one day i.e. on 31.3.2015, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order. F....