APPLE COMMODITIES LIMITED ,NOIDA V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA

ITA 1510/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Apple Commodities Limited appealing against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, following a search and seizure operation. The AO made several additions to the income of the assessee, which were contested. The primary legal contention was regarding the mechanical approval by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) under Section 153D, which was argued to be without proper application of mind and thus invalid. The Tribunal examined various precedents and the procedural adherence in granting such approvals, ultimately finding in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112059 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Versus Sapna Gupta, ACIT Versus M/S. Serajuddin & Co., PCIT Versus Anuj Bansal, Dilip Constructions Pvt Ltd. Versus ACIT, Mysore Finlease Private Limited New Delhi and Others Versus ACIT, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. Versus ACIT, Shri Balwinder Singh Kohli Versus DCIT, Sanjay Duggal Versus ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL; PRANAV YADAV
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Document seized; Documents seized; Period of limitation; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Assessment record; Competent authority; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 132; 153A; 22; 13; 153C; 142(2A); 20; 101

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1510/DEL/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Apple Commodities Limited, vs. DCIT, Central Circle II, B-16, Sector-2, Noida Noida-201301 (PAN :AADCA0300K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by :Shri Amit Goel, CA & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date of Order : 16.04.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, Kanpur-4, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 08.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO is liable to be quashed as the AO has not complied with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act and the CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by the limitation and the CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO is liable to be quashed as no valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and the CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 1,20,04,096/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of 2 interest is beyond the scope of provisions of section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,04,906/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of rejecting the books of accounts. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO is contrary to provision of section 153D of the Act and CIT(A) in not holding so. 8. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter / modify the existing round before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 11.11.2014 alognwith Apple Group of Companies cases. The return of income was filed on 22.08.2016 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. Notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued after recording the reasons u/s. 153C of the Act on 02.12.2016. Further notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.09.2016. Later on, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire were also issued and AO completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unaccounted transaction in a seized document, addition of Rs. 53,70,705/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan, addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit and addition of Rs. 1,20,04,096/- on account of interest on bank loan upon diversion of funds. On the basis of above facts, income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 2,09,74,801/- u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Against the aforesaid assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee only pressed the legal ground that approval u/s. 153D of the Act by the JCIT is mechanical and without 3 application of mind. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed the copy of letter dated 10.1.2018 of the Assessing Officer sent to JCIT for approval; copy of approval u/s. 153D of the Act dated 11.1.2018 of the JCIT, Central Range, Meerut. He also filed the following synopsis in support of his contention. “1. The assessment order passed by the assessing officer is contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Act. The provisions of section 153D are as under: - \"no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by the assessing officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A or assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 153B except with the prior approval of Joint Commissioner.\" 2. It is humbly submitted that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any authority, such authority is legally required to discharge the obligation by application of mind. The approval of JCIT should reflect application of mind. The requirement of approval cannot be treated as mere formality and the mandate of the Act is that the approving authority has to act in a judicious manner by due application of mind in a manner of a quasi-judicial authority. If the approval has been granted by the approving authority in a mechanical manner, the very purpose of obtaining approval under section 153D of the Act and the mandate of the enactment by the legislature will be defeated. 3. In the present case, the approval by JCIT is not valid in view of the following reasons:- i. As per section 153A of the Act, for making assessment notice is required to be issued for each year separately for which the assessment are to be made. The notice u/s. 142(1) is also issued separately for each of the years. The assessment order is also passed separately for each of the year. As per mandate of section 153D, the approval of JCIT is also required separately for each of the assessment year. In the present case, the JCIT has given combined approval for 7 years which is not in conformity with law. The issues stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court. 4 ii. The AO has sent the letter for approval of JCIT on 10.01.2018 and JCIT has granted approval on 11.1.2018. Thus, it was not possible for the JCIT to properly examine the facts of the case, the seized material and the issue involved. iii. The approval has been granted by the JCIT on the basis of undertaking / certificate from the AO that the contents of the appraisal report, seized material etc. have been examined by him. Thus, the JCIT has not made any independent application of mind. iv. The JCIT has not mentioned that he has gone through the appraisal report assessment records, seized material and other materials. v. The approval granted by the JCIT is without going through the seized material, appraisal report and other material on record. vi. There is not even a token mention in the approval that the draft assessment orders have been perused by the JCIT. Even the bare minimum requirement of approving authority having to indicate what the though process involved was, is missing. vii. The approval given by JCIT is not final. He has directed the AO that the fact of the initiation of penalty proceedings, wherever applicable, must be incorporated in the assessment order. 4. In the case of PCIT Versus Sapna Gupta, 2022 (12) TMI 887 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT it has been held as under: - 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 for \"each assessment year\" in respect of \"each assessee\"' separately. The words 'each assessment year' used in Section 153D and 153A have been considered to hold that effective and proper meaning has to be given so that underlying legislative intent as per scheme of assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was held that the \"approval\" as contemplated under 153D of the Act, requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the 5 Assessing Officer or not in framing the assessment. The approval, thus, cannot be a mere formality and, in any case, cannot be a mechanical exercise of power. It was noted that the obligations of the approval of the Approving Authority serves two purposes: (i) On the one hand, he has to apply his mind to ensure the interest of the revenue against any omission or negligence by the Assessing Officer in taxing right income in the hands of right person and in right assessment year. (ii) ii) On the other hand, superior authority is also responsible and duty- bound to do justice with the tax-payer by granting protection against arbitrary or creating baseless tax liability on the assessee. The Tribunal has further noted that the provisions contained in Sections 153A to Section 153D provide for separate notice to be given to assessee for assessment for each year as specified in Section 153A of the Act; the assessee has to file separate ITR for each year as specified in Section 153A of the Act; separate assessment orders are to be passed for each year as specified in Section 153A of the Act. It was observed that this is an important concept mentioned in Section 153A of the Act, which is peculiar to the scheme of the said Section. Keeping in view of this basic fundamental features of Section 153A, if Section 153D is scrutinized, then, it would become manifest that an important phrase is employed in the text of Section 153D, which is \"each assessment year\". The reading of the provisions in Section 153A and 153D conjointly makes it clear that separate approval of draft assessment order for each year is to be obtained under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act. In its erudite judgement with the discussion on the legislative intent of Section 153A to 153D and the meaning of the \"approval\" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary as also the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 JTR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said Court has held therein that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 6 The above discussion made in the judgement of Tribunal dated 3.08.2021 in the case of Navin Jain Vs. Dy. C.I.T. (Supra) has been relied by the Tribunal, in the instant case, to arrive at the conclusion that the mechanical approval under Section 153D of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings in the instant case. For the reasoning given in the case of Navin Jain (Supra), as extracted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as noted above, there cannot be any two opinion to the requirement of prior approval of the Joint Commissioner to the draft assessment order prepared by the Assessing Officer, as per the mandate of Section 153D of the Income Tax Act. The approval of draft assessment order being an in-built protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer, cannot be said to be a mechanical exercise, without application of independent mind by the Approving Authority on the material placed before it and the reasoning given in the assessment order. It is admitted by Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the approval order is an administrative exercise of power on the part of the Approving Authority but it is sought to be submitted that mere fact that the approval was in existence on the date of the passing of the assessment order, it could not have been vitiated. This submission is found to be a fallacy, in as much as, the prior approval of superior authority means that it should appraise the material before it so as to appreciate on factual and legal aspects to ascertain that the entire material has been examined by the Assessing Authority before preparing the draft assessment order. It is trite in law that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. The requirement of approval under Section 153D is pre-requisite to pass an order of assessment or re- assessment. Section 153D requires that the Assessing Officer shall obtain prior approval of the Joint Commissioner in respect of \"each assessment year\" referred to in Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 153A which provides for assessment in case of search under Section 132. Section 153A(1)(a) requires that the assessee on a notice issued to him by the Assessing Officer would be required to furnish the return of income in respect of \"each assessment year\" falling within six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years), referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A. The proviso to Section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). 7 The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to \"each assessment year\" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 85 cases, i.e. for 85 assessment years placed before the Approving Authority on 30.12.2017 was approved on same day i.e. 30.12.2017, which not only included the cases of respondent-assessee but the cases of other groups as well. It is humanly impossible to go through the records of 85 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the material before the Approving Authority. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it was a mechanical exercise of power, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. The aforesaid decision has since been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 452 ITR 227 SC. 5. In the case of ACIT Versus M/S. Serajuddin & Co., 2023 (3) TMI 785 - ORISSA HIGH COURT, wherein it has been held as under: - 12. It must be noted at this stage that even prior to the introduction of Section 153D in the Act, there was a requirement under Section 158BG of the Act, which was substituted by a Finance Act 14 of 1997 with retrospective effect from 1st January 1997, of the AO having to obtain a previous approval of the JCIT/Additional CIT by submitting a draft assessment order following a search and seizure operation. 13. The CBDT issued the Manual of Office Procedure in February 2003 in exercise of the powers under Section 109 of the Act. Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II (Technical) of the Manual reads as under:- \"9. Approval for assessment : An assessment order under Chapter XIV- B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/ADDL. CIT (For the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.). The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be 8 given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before the time barring date. Finally once such approval is granted, it must be in writing and filed in the relevant folder indicated above after making a due entry in the order-sheet. The assessment order can be passed only after the receipt of such approval. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional CIT. 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 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 'see' 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 AO should submit the draft assessment order \"well in time\". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; ii) the final approval must be in writing; (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the ITAT has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs 9 with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating the assessment orders themselves. The aforesaid decision has since been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court reported at [2024] 299 Taxmann 448 SC. 6. In the case of PCIT Versus Anuj Bansal, 2023 (7) TMI 1214 - DELHI HIGH COURT it has been held as under: - 15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are findings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The Tribunal was right that there was absence of application of mind by the ACIT in granting approval under Section 153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which could be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act. The aforesaid decision has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 466 ITR 254 SC. 7. In the case of Dilip Constructions Pvt Ltd. Versus ACIT and Shilpa Seema Constructions Pvt Ltd. Versus ACIT, 2019 (12) TMI 311 - ITAT CUTTACK it has been held as under: - 30. In this approval, we are unable to see any mention by the approving authority that he has perused the relevant assessment records and draft assessment orders proposed to be passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer issued letter seeking approval on 17.11.2017 and approval has been granted on 23.11.2017 that after a passage of five days time from the approval order as reproduced hereinabove. From the above, it is very much clear that the approving authority i.e. the ld JCIT has not even bothered to mention that he has perused the relevant assessment records and draft assessment orders for which he has granted approval u/s.153D of the Act as per the mandatory requirements of the said provisions of the Act. 40. In view of above, we are inclined to hold 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 of approval u/s.153D and mandate of enactment by the legislature will be defeated. In the present case, the approving authority, the ld. JCIT got five days time but from the order of approval, we are unable to see any 10 exercise by the approving authority and even in the approval orders (supra), he has not mentioned that the relevant appeal folders/files along with assessments/reassessment orders have been perused or any discussion or consultation has been made with the AO prior to granting of approval u/s.153D of the Act. Accordingly, we are compelled to hold that the approval granted by the Id. JCIT in the appeals under consideration has been granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind and that the assessments/reassessment orders passed by the AO on such approval are declared to be void and bad in law. We hold so. The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble ITAT has since been approved/affirmed by Hon’ble Orissa High Court. 8. In the case of Mysore Finlease Private Limited New Delhi and Others Versus ACIT, 2024 (1) TMI 793 - ITAT DELHI it has been held as under: - 7. We find that the Id. JCIT granted approval of the draft assessment orders u/s 153D of the Act for 40 cases for various Asst Years in respect of assessments to be completed u/s 153A of the Act. The Ld. AR before us had raised a preliminary objection that the said statutory approval granted by the Id. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act enabling the Id. AO to complete the search assessment, was a mere mechanical approval without due application of mind on the part of the Id. JCIT. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the meaning of 'approval' as contemplated u/s 153D of the Act is that the Id. JCIT is required to verify the issues raised by the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order and apply his mind and ascertain whether the entire facts have been properly appreciated by the Ld. AO. The said approval proceedings is a quasi-judicial function to be performed by the Id. JCIT based on sound reasoning on due examination of the seized documents, replies filed by the assessee and the draft assessment orders of the Ld. AO. Thus, it is bounden duty of the Id. JCIT to exercise this power by applying his judicious mind. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that the 40 draft assessment orders for 10 assessees were sent for approval by the Ld. AO to the Id. JCIT on 29.12.2017 and the Id. JCIT had granted approval for all the cases on the very same day, i.e., on 29.12.2017. The Ld. AR reiterated the fact that 40 draft assessment orders u/s 153A of the Act were approved by the Id. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act on the single day i.e. the day on which the draft assessment orders were forwarded to the Id. JCIT by the Id AO. Based on this, the Ld. AR submitted that the Id. JCIT had granted approval by devoting very few minutes for each case in a mechanical manner u/s 153D of the Act 11 without due application of mind. Moreover, the approval letter granted u/s 153D by the Id. JCIT for all the seven assessment years, clearly states that the draft assessment orders per se were placed by the Ld. AO before the Id. JCIT only on 29.12.2017 and they were approved on the very same day. Accordingly, he pleaded that this type of approval cannot be treated as a valid approval contemplated u/s 153D of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that a single approval was granted by the Id. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act for all assessment years put together instead of granting approval for each of the assessment years separately as contemplated in the section. Accordingly, the Ld. AR argued that the entire search assessments framed in the hands of the various assessees listed in the cause title u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 for various Asst Years under consideration required to be quashed as void ab initio. In support of this argument, the Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in ITA Nos.39 to 45 of 2022 dated 15.03.2023 in the case ACIT, Circle 1(2), Bhubaneshwar vs. M/s Serajuddin & Co. and the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Subodh Aggarwal in Income-tax Appeal No.86/2022 dated 12.12.2022. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 9. We find, as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the Id. JCIT in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a mandatory requirement of law. The said approval granting proceedings by the ld. JCIT is a quasi judicial proceeding requiring application of mind by the ld. JCIT judiciously. In order to ensure smooth implementation of the aforesaid provisions, in consonance with the true spirit of the scheme of the Act, it is the bounden duty of the Ld. AO to seek to place the draft assessment order together with copies of the seized documents before the Id. JCIT well in time much before the due date of completion of search assessment. The Id. JCIT is supposed to examine the seized documents, questionnaires raised by the Ld. AO on the assessee seeking explanation of contents in the seized documents, replies filed by the assessee in response to the questionnaires issued by the Ld. AO and the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO vis- à-vis the said seized documents after considering the reply of the assessee. All these functions, as stated earlier, are to be performed by the Id. JCIT in a 12 judicious way after due application of mind. Even though as vehemently argued by the Ld. CIT-DR, the Id. JCIT is involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing, still, the Id. JCIT, while granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act has to independently apply his mind dehors the conclusions drawn either by the Investigation Wing in the appraisal report or by the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order. The copy of the appraisal report submitted by the Investigation Wing to the Ld. AO and Id. JCIT are merely guidance to the Ld. AO and are purely internal correspondences on which the assessee does not have any access. Moreover, the Act mandates the Ld. AO to frame the assessment after getting prior approval from Id. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. The Id. JCIT getting involved in the search assessment proceedings right from inception does not have any support from the provisions of the Act as no where the Act mandates so. The scheme of the Act mandates due application of mind by the Ld. AO to examine the seized documents independently dehors the appraisal report of the Investigation Wing and seek explanation/clarifications from the assessee on the contents of the seized documents. When the scheme of the Act provides for a leeway to both the Ld. AO as well as the ld. JCIT to even ignore the conclusions drawn in the appraisal report by the Investigation Wing and take a different stand in the assessment proceedings, the fact of Id. JCIT getting involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the receipt of copy of appraisal report, as argued by the Ld. CIT DR, has no substance. In other words, irrespective of the conclusions drawn in the appraisal report by the Investigation Wing, both the Ld. AO and the Id. JCIT are supposed to independently apply their mind in a judicious way before drawing any conclusions on the contents of the seized documents while framing the search assessments. In our considered opinion, if the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR are to be appreciated that the Id. JCIT need not apply his mind while granting approval of the draft assessment orders u/s 153D of the Act as it is not provided in section 153D of the Act, then it would make the entire approval proceedings contemplated u/s 153D of the Act otiose. The law provides only the Ld. AO to frame the assessment, but, certain checks and balances are provided in the Act by conferring powers on the Id. JCIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act to the draft assessment orders placed by the Ld. AO. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has been granted by the Id. JCIT in the instant case before us in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, thereby making the approval proceedings by a high ranking authority, an empty ritual. Such an approval has neither been mandated by the provisions of the Act nor endorsed by the decisions of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Delhi High Court) referred to supra. Hence, we find lot of force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR in support of the additional grounds raised for all assessment years under consideration before us for all the assessees. Accordingly, the Additional Grounds raised by all the assessees for all the assessment years under consideration are hereby allowed. 9. In the case of Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. Versus ACIT and M/S Arch Impex P.Ltd. Versus ACIT, 2021 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT MUMBAI it has been held as under: - 9. On the validity of approval under section 153D, Ld. AR adverted our attention to the communication letter dated 29.12.10 forwarded by the AO (reproduced supra) addressed to the Addl. CIT and pointed out that the AO in the said letter neither makes any iota of reference as to what are the seized materials of incriminating nature found nor does he forwards any such material for consideration and reference of the Addl.CIT so as to apply his mind to such material enable him to grant statutory approval of search assessments in terms of sect ion 153D of the Act. It was pointed out that all that the AO mentions in the said letter is that tall seized materials and data on electronic devices seized during the search operation have been considered while framing assessment order' and thus contended that the designated authority has acted in oblivion while granting a consolidated & combined approval for all search assessment years in a summary manner and without the assessment records and without seized material placed before him/her and thus acted merely on the basis of an undertaking from the AO that all seized material has been considered while framing assessment order. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 11.4 Based on solitary communication placed before us, it is ostensible that draft assessment orders were placed before the Addl. CIT on 29.12.2010 for the first time. It| is axiomatic from the plain reading of approval memo that various assessment orders and the issues incorporated in the assessment orders, were never subjected to any discussion with the authority granting approval prior to 29.12.2010. It is evident from the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008 that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it obligatory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority apply their mind on the materials and other attending circumstances on the basis of which the Assessing officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority is required to accord approval the respective Assessment order. Solemn object of entrusting the duty of Approval of assessment in search cases is that the Additional CIT, with his experience and maturity of understanding should at least minimally scrutinize the seized documents and another material forming the foundation of Assessment. It is elementary that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any statutory authority, such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind. Thus, the obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO. The approval granted under section I53D of the Act should necessarily reflect due application of mind and if the same is subjected to judicial scrutiny, it should stand for itself and should be self-defending. There are long line of judicial precedents which provides guidance in applying the law in this regard. 11.5 At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in the instant case, approving authority did not mention anything in the approval memo towards his/ her process of deriving satisfaction so as to exhibit his/her due application of mind. We may observe that Para 2 of the above approval letter merely says that \"Approval is hereby accorded w/s. 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to complete assessments u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act in the following case on the basis of draft assessment orders... *which clearly proves that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass the order only on 15 the basis of contents mentioned in the draft assessment order without any application of mind and seized materials were not looked at and/or other enquiry and examination was never carried out. From the said approval, it can he easily inferred that the said order was approved, solely relying upon the implied undertaking obtained from the Assessing Officer in the form of draft assessment order that AD has taken due care while framing respective draft assessment orders and that all the observations made in the appraisal report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT. was supposed to supervise. The Addl. CIT in short appears to have adopted a short cut in the matter and an undertaking from AO was considered adequate by him/ her to accord approval in all assessments involved. Manifestlv, the Additional CIT, without any consideration of merits in proposed adjustments with reference to appraisal report, incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT, Central has rendered the Approval to be a mere formality and can not be countenanced in law. 11.6 There are several decisions, which supports the view that approval granted by the superior authority in mechanical manner defeats the very purpose of obtaining approval w/s 153D. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) and approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently as reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee. 11.7 Very recently, the co-ordinate bench in Sanjay Duggal & ors (ITA 1813/Del/2019 & ors; order dated 19.01.2021 has also echoed the same view after a detailed analysis of similar facts and also expressed a discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act. Hence. vindicated by the factual position as noted in preceding paras, we find considerable force in the plea raised by the Assessee against maintainability of hollow approval under S. 153D totally devoid of any application 16 of mind. The approval so granted under the shelter of section 153D, does not, in our view, pass the test of legitimacy. The Assessment orders of various assessment years as a consequence of such inexplicable approval lacks legitimacy. Consequently, the impugned assessments relatable to search in captioned appeals are non est and a nullity and hence quashed. 10. In the case of ACIT Versus M/S Janak Raj Gupta & Co., 2024 (2) TMI 35 ITAT DELHI it has been held as under: - 12. The legal objection of transgression of requirements of approval under section 153D of the Act is in controversy. Pursuant to search carried out on 06/11/2008 on M/s. Nimtaya group of Companies, the assessment proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act carried out. The Assessing officer forwarded the draft assessment orders for 5 vears (AY 2005-06 to AY 2009-10) in both the cases of the Assessees for endorsement and approval of the superior authority at the fag-end of the limitation period on 30/12/2010 to meet the legal requirement imposed by section 153D of the Act. The Addl. CIT i.e. the superior authority, in turn, granted a combined and consolidated approval for all 5 assessment vears in promptly on 30/12/2010 itself. For passing such assessment orders, the assessing Officer is governed by S.153D of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer should complete the assessment proceedings and prepare a draft assessment order which need to be placed before the approving authority i.e. Joint/Addl. Commissioner(designated authority giving approval to search assessments u/s. 153D of the Act). The approving authority is necessarily required to objectively evaluate such draft assessment order with due application of mind on various issues contained in such order so as to derive his/her conclusive satisfaction that the proposed action of AO is in conformity with subsisting law. The AO is obligated to pass the assessment order exactly, as per approval/directions of the designated authority. Inevitably, this evaluation is to be made on the basis of material gathered at time of search as well as obtained in the course of the assessment proceeding. The requirement of law is to grant approval not merely as a formality or a symbolic act but a mandatory requirement. 13. As observed, Section 153D of the Act bestows a supervisory jurisdiction on the designated authority in respect of search related assessment and thus enjoins a salutary duty of statutory nature. The designated superior authority is thus expected to confirm to the statutory 17 requirement in letter and spirit. It is evident from the communication of AO and consequent approval thereon under S. 153D of the Act, that no assessment record for any assessment years in question or any seized material had travelled to the authority concerned for his objective consideration of the same qua the draft assessment orders. No reference in this regard is made in the approval note either which may discard such allegation as untrue. No other materials were placed before us by the Revenue to establish otherwise. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17. Thus, there is nothing else before us to prove the facts differently. A bare glance at the approval so accorded makes it evident that such approval is generic and listless and accorded in a blanket manner without any reference to any issue in respect of any of the 5 assessment years. Apparently, the approval has been granted on a dotted line without any availability of reasonable time which firms up the belief towards non application of mind. Besides, the approval has been granted in a consolidated manner for all assessment years for which voluminous assessment orders were prepared. The whole sequence of action apparently appears to be illusory to merely meet the requirement of law as an empty formality. It is also alleged on behalf of assessee that the draft assessment orders are not available on record which allegation has not been rebutted. The draft assessment orders showing some marking / initials etc. could have given a valuable input on the applicability of mind and could throw some light on objectivity applied owing to total silence on any delineation on these aspects in the approval memo. 18. Based on solitary communication placed before us, it is ostensible that draft assessment orders were placed before the Addl. CIT on 30.12.2010 for the first time. It is axiomatic from the plain reading of approval memo that various assessment orders and the issues incorporated in the assessment orders, were never subjected to any discussion with the authority granting approval prior to 30.12.2010. It is evident from the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008 that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it obligatory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority apply their mind on the materials and other attending circumstances on the basis of which the Assessing officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority is required to accord approval of the respective Assessment order. Solemn object of entrusting the duty of Approval of assessment in search case is that the Additional CIT, with his experience and maturity of understanding should at least minimally 18 scrutinize the seized documents and any other material forming the foundation of Assessment. It is elementary that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any statutory authority, such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind. Thus, the obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO. The approval granted under section 153D of the Act should necessarily reflect due application of mind and if the same is subjected to judicial scrutiny, it should stand for itself and should be self- defending. There are long line of judicial precedents which provides guidance in applying the law in this regard. 19. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in the instant case, approving authority did not mention anything in the approval memo towards his/ her process of deriving satisfaction so as to exhibit his/her due application of mind. We may observe that the above approval letter issued by the Addl. Commissioner merely says that the approval has been granted in view of the letter of the A.O. The letter of approval issued under Section 153D reads as under: 20. Plain reading of the letter of approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner, clearly depicts that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass the order only on the basis of letter of the Ld. A.O. without any application of mind and the seized materials were not looked at and/or other enquiry and examination was never carried out. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the Draft Assessment Orders were approved, solely relying upon the implied undertaking obtained from the Assessing Officers in the form of draft assessment orders that AO has taken due care while framing respective draft assessment orders and that all the observations made in the appraisal report relating to examination/investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been stately considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed to supervise. The addl. CIT in short appears to have adopted a short cut in the matter and an undertaking from AO was considered adequate by him to accord approval in all assessments involved. Manifestly, the Additional CIT, without any consideration of merits in proposed additions with reference to appraisal report, incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT, Central has rendered the Approval to be a mere formality and cannot be countenanced in law. 19 11. In the case of Shri Balwinder Singh Kohli Versus DCIT, 2023 (6) TMI 1333 - ITAT AMRITSAR wherein it has been held as under: - 10. In the instant cases, the AO has submitted the draft assessment order on 20/03/2015 before the Approving Authority who had approved on same day i.e. 20/03/2015. In our view, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 5 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise material records. Further, the approving authority has not mentioned any indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. Even the approving authority has not written or repeated the words of the statute, in granting the approval w/s 153D of the Act. We are therefore of the considered view that mere endorsing a list of cases by signature with \"rubber stamping\" of the letter without mentioning even the words like 'seen' or 'approved' will not satisfy the requirement of the law for approval or sanction u/s 153D of the Act. Therefore, we hold that in the present case, the prior approval of the Additional CIT before passing the order of assessment in pursuant to a search operation being a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act was not as per law because such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Without application of mind by the Additional CIT which resulted in vitiating the assessment orders themselves. 11. In the above view, we hold that mandatory approval was being granted mechanically without application of mind by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-Range, Jalandhar, and therefore, this mechanical exercise of power has vitiated entire assessment proceedings and consequently, the said assessment orders are rendered void ab initio. Consequently, the impugned order is held to be infirm, illegal and bad in law and same is as such quashed. 12. In the case of Sanjay Duggal Versus ACIT, 2021 (1) TMI 909 - ITAT DELHI wherein it has been held as under: - 14. Another interesting aspect that has come to the notice on the basis of various documents submitted for approval as well as request for approval by the A.O. to the JCIT. We make a specific reference to letter dated 29.12.2017 written by ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi, which is placed at page-144 of the PB. This letter Dated 29.12.2017 is a request for obtaining approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act in the case of Shri Rajnish Talwar and family wherein the approval in the 20 case of Shri Rajnish Talwar for A.Ys. 2010-2011 to 2016-2017 is sought for. The A.O, send the dran assessment order along with assessment records of the above named assesssee. In paragraph-4 of the letter, A.O. stated as under:- \"It is certified that all issues raised in the appraisal reports have been duly examined with reference to the seized impounded material 15. Thus, the JCIT acted on certificate given by the A.O, without satisfying himseif to the record/seized material etc.. The A.O. sent only assessment records to the SCIll for his approval. The identical is fast in the case of all the request for approval made by the A.O, but factual position noted above established that even assessment records have not been seen by the JCIT. The A.O. sent draft assessment orders for 07 assessment years on 29.12.2017 which were got approved on 30.12.2017 merely on the basis of draft assessment order. The JCIT in the approval Order Dated 30.12.2017 also mentioned that A.O. to ensure all the assessment proceedings are conducted as per procedure and Law. It would show that even JCIT was not satisfied with the assessment proceedings conducted by the A.O. as per Law and records. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following case law: - * Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT Central Circle - 28 New Delhil 2024 (5) TMI 1494 - ITAT Delhi * Gulshan Kumar Sethi Versus DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad 2024 (11) TMI 235 - ITAT Delhi * Veena Singh Versus ACIT Central Circle-25, DELHI * Shri Santosh Subhashappa Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Aurangabad And (Vice-Versa) 2024 (9) TMI 1663 - ITAT Pune * M/S. Infolance Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Cirele-13 2024 (11) TMI 1307 - ITAT Delhi In view of the above, it is submitted that in the absence of valid approval u/s 1S3D, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 21 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before adjudicating upon the legal issue, we may gainfully refer below the approval dated 11.01.2018 granted u/s. 153D of the Act by the JCIT in the case of Apple Group: 22 7. Upon careful consideration, we find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR for the assesse that as per section 153A of the Act, for making assessment notice is required to be issued for each year separately for which the assessment are to be made. The notice u/s. 142(1) is also issued separately for each of the years. The assessment order is also passed separately for each of the year. As per mandate of section 153D, the approval of JCIT is also required separately for each of the assessment year. However, in the present case, the JCIT has given combined approval for 7 years which is not in conformity with law as settled by various Courts. It is further noted that the AO has sent the letter for approval of JCIT on 10.01.2018 and JCIT has granted approval on 11.1.2018, which is not practically feasible, as he has to properly examine the facts of the case, the seized material and the issue involved. It is germane to mention here that the approval has been granted by the JCIT on the basis of undertaking / certificate from the AO that the contents of the appraisal report, seized material etc. have been examined by him. Thus, the JCIT has not made any independent application of mind. The JCIT has not mentioned that he has gone through the appraisal report, assessment records, seized material and other materials which clearly shows that the approval granted by the JCIT is without going through the seized material, appraisal report and other material on record. The approval given by JCIT is not final. He has directed the AO that the fact of the initiation of penalty proceedings, wherever applicable, must be incorporated in the assessment order. In our view, whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any authority, such authority is legally required to discharge the obligation by application of mind. The approval of JCIT should reflect application of mind, which is missing in the instant case. The requirement of approval cannot be treated as mere formality and the mandate of the Act is that the approving authority has to act in a judicious manner by due application of mind in a manner of a quasi-judicial authority. Moreover, it is settled law that if the approval has been granted by the approving authority in a mechanical manner, the very purpose of obtaining approval u/s. 153D of the Act and the mandate of the 23 enactment by the legislature will be defeated. However, JCIT without any consideration of merits in proposed additions with reference to the incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the JCIT has rendered approval to be a mere formality and cannot be countenanced in law. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that approval by JCIT is not valid, hence, deserves to be quashed. In view of above, it is clear that Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax has given approval which is purely mechanical and without application of mind. In such cases, the assessment looses its validity. The case laws refereed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are germane and very much supports the case of the assessee. 8. We note that Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs, Splendor Landbase ltd. and Vice Versa and ACIT vs. Hridey Vikram Bhatia and (vice versa) vide order dated 7.3.2025 reported in 2025 (3) TMI 599 has considered the exactly similar issue and has held as under:- “2025 (3) TMI 599 - ITAT DELHI ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI. VERSUS SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA) AND ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI. VERSUS HRIDEY VIKRAM BHATIA AND (VICE-VERSA) ITAS No. 2462 & 2463/Del/2016, CO Nos. 101 & 102/Del/2024 (ITAs No. 2462 & 2463/Del/2016) And ITAs No. 3173 & 3174/Del/2016, CO Nos. 02 & 03/Del/2025 (ITAs No. 3173 & 3174/Del/2016) Dated: - 7-3-2025 Legality of approval granted u/s 153D - allegation of perusing the records for each assessment year separately - HELD THAT:- We find that only draft assessment orders were sent to JCIT without any assessment or search record. The approvals establishes that approving authority has granted the approvals, without reasons or depicting having applied an active mind to the issue involved and the material relied by the AO, but by merely mentioning \"Following draft assessment orders are being approved\", the impugned approval is granted. 24 Now more particularly in the present set of facts where substantive additions were made in the hands of respondent and protective assessment were made in the hands of its Director respondent, had the competent authority been even aware of the fact of the protective and substantive assessments being made, then it was more likely to have been granted in one letter. Rather if the sequence number of letters granting approval is considered the approval was first granted in case of protective addition and then of substantive addition in case of the company. This certainly shows that unmindful of nature of material relied and nature of additions the approvals have been mechanically granted by the JCIT. Whatever attempt is now being made by the department to fill in the lacuna by filing letters of then JCIT who granted the approval is dong more damage to the case of the department because when we take into consideration the letter of then JCIT, with the submission, we find that the said JCIT seems to be still under impression that grant of approval is mere formality and for that reasons the JCIT has stated in this letter that, \"It is further noted that Approval letter U/s 153D is 'only a formal' culmination of application of mind, which takes place throughout the assessment period.\" On the contrary law as stands crystallized is that the approval letter should be speaking one and show that approval was granted by application of mind. There is inherent fallacy in the belief of JCIT as mentioned in this letter that \"there is no requirement in law creating any evidence for discussions before granting the approval u/s 153D.\" On the contrary this bench is of firm view that not only as quasi-judicial authority but even in administrative capacity, if an approval is to be granted under a statute for initiating any quasi judicial proceedings then such approval should be self contained piece of evidence that due process of law was followed in grant of approval. Which certainly is not the case here. Thus, approvals granted in case of both the assessee to be vitiated and deserve to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.” (Heads Notes). 9. We further draw support from the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Sanjay Duggal Versus ACIT, 2021 (1) TMI 909 - wherein on identical issue, it has been held as under: - “14. Another interesting aspect that has come to the notice on the basis of various documents submitted for approval as well as request for approval by the A.O. to the JCIT. We make a specific reference to letter dated 29.12.2017 written by ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi, which is placed at page-144 of the PB. 25 This letter Dated 29.12.2017 is a request for obtaining approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act in the case of Shri Rajnish Talwar and family wherein the approval in the case of Shri Rajnish Talwar for A.Ys. 2010-2011 to 2016-2017 is sought for. The A.O, send the dran assessment order along with assessment records of the above named assesssee. In paragraph-4 of the letter, A.O. stated as under:- \"It is certified that all issues raised in the appraisal reports have been duly examined with reference to the seized impounded material 15. Thus, the JCIT acted on certificate given by the A.O, without satisfying himself to the record/seized material etc.. The A.O. sent only assessment records to the SCIll for his approval. The identical is fast in the case of all the request for approval made by the A.O, but factual position noted above established that even assessment records have not been seen by the JCIT. The A.O. sent draft assessment orders for 07 assessment years on 29.12.2017 which were got approved on 30.12.2017 merely on the basis of draft assessment order. The JCIT in the approval Order Dated 30.12.2017 also mentioned that A.O. to ensure all the assessment proceedings are conducted as per procedure and Law. It would show that even JCIT was not satisfied with the assessment proceedings conducted by the A.O. as per Law and records.” 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and also by respectfully following the aforesaid binding precedents, we hold that the approval dated 11.01.2018 granted u/s. 153D of the Act by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Meerut in the instant case is mechanical and without due application of mind. Accordingly, we quash the assessment and allow the legal ground raised by the assessee. Since we have quashed the assessment, the other grounds, have become academic, hence, need not be adjudicated upon. 11. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced on 16.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "