| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8282 (Agra-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Sections 153A & 153D
Where Addl. CIT, without any consideration on merit in respect of issues on which addition was made granted approval on undertaking of AO, then this approach of Addl. CIT had rendered approval to be an eyewash and idle formality and such a mechanically granted approval was no approval in the eyes of law and accordingly, assessment made by AO based on such an approval was also null and void.
|
Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153A - Validity - Mechanical approval granted by Addl. CIT under section 153D
Assessee challenged validity of assessment framed under section 153A on the ground that so-called approval as granted by Addl. CIT under section 153D for passing impugned assessment under section 153A was no approval in the eyes of law, having been granted mechanically without application of mind. Held: As clearly mentioned in the Approval dt. 26-3-2015 under challenge, prior to this date, case was never discussed with authority granting approval. Addl. CIT had noted that even questionnaire as was required to be issued with the approval of Addl. CIT, in view of CBDT instruction was not issued with his approval; as there was no time left to analyze the issue of draft order on merit, therefore, said order was approved, as specifically mentioned in said order, solely relying upon undertaking obtained from AO that AO had taken due care while framing assessment that all the observations made in appraisal report relating to examination/investigation as also issues identified in the course of examination of seized material had been carefully considered by the authority seeking approval. Thus, sanctioning authority delegated his statuary duty to grant Approval, after due application of his mind, to same subordinate AO, whose action the Add. CIT, was supposed to supervise. Admittedly, Addl. CIT, without any consideration on merit in respect of issues on which addition was made granted approval on undertaking of AO, in view of paucity of time with him for granting approval. This approach of Addl. CIT had rendered approval to be an eyewash and idle formality and such a mechanically granted approval was no approval in the eyes of law and accordingly assessment made by AO based on such an approval was also null and void.
REFERRED : AAP Paper Marketing Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2017) (4) TMI 1371 : [ITA Nos. 167, 168, 321, 322 and 192/Lkw/2016, dt. 28-4-2017], Smt. Shreelekha Damani v. Dy. CIT (2015) 173 TTJ 332 (Mum-Trib.) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3650 (Mum-Trib), CIT v. Smt. Shreelekha Damani (2019) 307 CTR (Bom.) 218 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7540 (Bom-HC), Geeta Rani Panda v. ACIT (2018) 194 TTJ (Ctk-Trib) 915 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5809 (Ctk-Trib), Saurabh Agarwal v. DCIT (2019) (9) TMI 866 (Agra-Bench) : [ITA No. 263 to 267/Agr/2017, ITA No. 260 to 262/Agr/2017, ITA No. 272 & 273/Agr/2017, ITA No. 268/Agr/2017, ITA No. 276/Agr/2017, ITA No. 269/Agr/2017, dt. 18-9-2019], Ghanshyam v. ITO (2018) 194 TTJ UO (Agra-Trib) 25 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4134 (Agra-Trib, State Bank of India v. ACIT [in W.P No. 53 of 2018 (Bom.) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2119 (Bom-HC)], Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT [in W.P No. (C) 1357/2016 (Del)] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4248 (Del-HC) and Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1907 (SC).
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|