DCIT, NEW DELHI V. M/S. RAUS INFRAS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 6874/DEL/2014

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by the Revenue against M/s Raus Infras Limited concerning the assessment orders for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13. These appeals were based on the grounds that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting various additions made by the Assessing Officer, which included unconfirmed and mismatched sundry creditors, disallowance of job charges, and unexplained loans among others. A significant issue was the approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, which was argued to be granted in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The Tribunal, referencing several judicial precedents, concluded that the approval was indeed mechanical and arbitrary, leading to the quashing of the assessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840152 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2014
• Other Referred Cases: S. Narayanappa vs. CIT, Rishabhehand Bhansali vs. DCIT, Shri Guvinder Singh Duggal vs. ITA No. 860 to 863/Del/2021, MDLR Airline (P) Ltd. vs. ITA No. 1420 & 1421/Del/2023, PCII vs Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar, Arch Phamalabs Lid vs. ITA No. 6656/Mum/2017, PCIT Vs M/s Hotels P Lad, Veena Singh vs. ITA No. 294 & 295/Del/2022, NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, Sanjay Sawhney vs. PCIT, ACIT vs. Sant Lal Aggrawal group, PCIT vs Anuj Bansal, PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar, PCIT vs Subhash Dabas, ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Document seized; Documents seized; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Assessment record; Competent authority; Procedural lapse
• Section: 147; 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6874/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.6875/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITA No.6876/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi. Vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited, 16-C, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. PAN-AAECR4013R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The three appeals filed by the Revenue are against separate orders dated 30.09.2014 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXII, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), arising out of distinct assessment orders dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer/DCIT, Central Circle-16, New Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited Delhi (herein referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 respectively. 2. Since, all appeals involved similar facts, grounds of appeal and issues therefore, these appeals were taken up together and heard. All are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. First we take up the appeal for AY 2010-11 in ITA No.6874/Del/2014. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in Raus Infras Limited group of cases. The case was centralized to this circle vide order dated 23.08.2012 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V, New Delhi. In pursuance of warrant of authorization search was conducted on 15.06.2011 on assessee's premises. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee 29.08.2012. Assessee filed a return u/s 153A on 15.01.2013 at an income of Rs.2,00,34,680/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.01.2013. A detailed questionnaire alongwith a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2012. In compliance to various notices, Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CA, and Sh. Rajnish Aggarwal, Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed various information. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 31.03.2014 made additions of Rs.29,78,44,240/-. 5. Against order dated 31.03.2014 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2014. 6. Being aggrieved appellant Revenue preferred present appeal i.e. ITA No.6874/Del/2014 on following grounds: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,47,994/- made by A.O. on account of un- confirmed and mismatch of sundry creditors. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,75,69,308/-made by A.O on account of 30% disallowance of job charge. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- made by A.O. on account of disallowance of expenses. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 87,43,489/- made by A.O. on account of seized documents. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,01,59,281/ made by A.O. on account of estimating the gross profit @ 30%. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 47,80,000/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained imprest account. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,46,192/- made by A.O. on account of unsecured loans. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 7. The Respondent assessee filed an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1963 dated 19.09.2025 with following additional ground:- “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 (being common approval for all assessment years) and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed.\" 8. Ld. Departmental Representative in written submissions submitted as under: 28.01.2026 page 2 to 13 stated as under: “B. It is important to discuss the statutory framework of the Section 153 D, Income Tax Act Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited Section 153 D of the Act was inserted vide amendment in Finance Act 2007 provides for the prior approval for the assessment in cases of search or requisition. Prior to the amendment vide Finance Act 2007 the existing provisions of making assessment and reassessment in cases where search has been conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, does not provide for any approval for such assessment. Accordingly, new section 153D has been inserted to provide that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner except with the previous approval of the Joint Commissioner. Such provision has been made applicable to orders of assessment or reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause (b) of section 153B in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisitioned is made under section 132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial scrutiny. The apex court held that the stage of obtaining approval from higher authority was administrative in character and not a quasi-judicial act. What is to be seen is whether the Approving Authority is competent to grant approval is important and under scheme of things the JCIT is the competent authority to grant approval u/s 153D of the Act. In view of the above, it is submitted that ground of appeal on the issue of invalid approval under section 153D of the IT Act may kindly be dismissed for the reason mentioned above. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Rishabhehand Bhansali vs. DCIT in 136 taxman 579 held the approval granted by the JCIT is an administrative act and does not create any right to the appellant. The Hon'ble High Court noted\" \"4. Section 158BG provides that no order of assessment for the Block period shall be passed by the Assessing Officer without the previous approval of the Joint Commissioner in respect of a search initiated under section 132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing should be read into section 158BG. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider this ground though specifically urged before it Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited 4.1 Chapter XIV-B contains a special procedure for assessment of search cases. Section 158BC prescribes the procedure for block assessment. Clause (c) of section 158BC enables the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period, to pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment. Clause (b) requires the Assessing Officer to proceed in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144, while determining the undisclosed income of the block period. It is thus evident that the procedure clearly contemplates the Assessing Officer giving a hearing to the assessee before making an assessment order in regard to the block period. 4.2 Clause (k) of section 246A provides for an appeal against the order of assessment for the block period made by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC. Sub-section (2) of section 250 provides for a hearing of the appeal. Thus, the assessee is heard by the Assessing Officer before making the assessment order under section 158BC. If the assessee is aggrieved by the assessment order he had a remedy by way of an appeal under section 2464 where also he is heard. There is no need therefore for the Joint Commissioner, to give a hearing before giving previous approval under section 158BG. Firstly, the statute does not provide for such a hearing; secondly, principles of natural justice also do not require such a hearing having regard to the fact that the assessee gets a hearing before the assessment and also a hearing if he files an appeal against the order of assessment; and thirdly the order passed by the Joint Commissioner granting previous approval under the proviso to section 158BG is in exercise of administrative power on being satisfied that the order of assessment has been made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. The previous approval is purely an internal matter and it does not decide upon any rights of the assessee. The Joint Commissioner, while examining the matter under the proviso to section 158BG does not examine or adjudicate upon the rights or obligations of the assessee, but only considers whether the Assessing Officer has fulfilled the requirements of Chapter XIV- B. 4.3 In FC Shukla v. State AIR 1980 SC 962 the Supreme Court give the following example: \"In cases where low requires sanction to be given by the appointing authority before a prosecution can be launched against a Government servant, never suggested that the accused must be heard before sanction is accorded……” 4.4 Where a statute requires the Executive to take an administrative action after being satisfied or after forming an opinion as to the existence of a state of circumstance the action is based on the subjective satisfaction. It is well- settled that any administrative actions based either on policy or on subjective assessment, if does not prejudicially affect any vested right or interest, need Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited not be preceded by a hearing unless the statute specifically provides for the same. Therefore, in the absence of any provision for opportunity of hearing in section 158BG, there is no need for the Joins Commissioner to give a hearing to the assessee before granting \"previous approval\" under section 158BG. The first question is, therefore, answered against the asseecee.” C. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Smt. Usha Satish Salvi vs ACTT Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai in ITA Nos. 4239,4237 & 4238/Mum/2023 dated 23.01.2025 has examined all the following judgements of the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Courts [Para 6.2] and rejected the objection raised by the assessee that approval granted u/s 153D of the Act has been accorded on presumption and without application of mind rather opined that approval was granted by the Addl. CIT after due application of mind: 6.2 (1) Decision dated 06/06/2024 of Delhi bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Guvinder Singh Duggal in ITA No. 860 to 863/Del/2021 for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19 (ii) Decision dated 29/04/2024 of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of MDLR Airline (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 1420 & 1421/Del/2023 for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, (iii) Decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCII vs Sapna Gupta in ITA No. 88 of 2022 (iv) Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar in ITA 285/2004 & CM Appeal 28994/2024 (v) Decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Arch Phamalabs Lid in ITA No. 6656/Mum/2017 for AY 2011-12 and other appeals. (vi) Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs M/s Hotels P Lad in ΙΤΑ 593/2023 (vii) Decision dated 24/04/2024 of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Veena Singh in ITA No. 294 & 295/Del/2022 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. Without prejudice to above objection, it is submitted that letter giving approval under section 153 D of the LT. Act in the instant case has not been annexed with rule 27 application, hence, assessee has failed to show how any prejudice has been caused to his assessment. The said ground is highly presumptive and untenable. It is not a gainsaying that the JCIT hold the concurrent jurisdiction and that the assessment is a continuous process involving administrative as well statutory roles being donned by the JCIT. And it is incumbent on the approving authority to examine and monitor the assessments which can't be denied if the same is not reduced in writing at every point of time till the finalization of the assessment. The approval of the approving authority underlines that he has examined the assessment records, relevant copies of seized documents and the relevant issues arising from the material on record judiciously in independent manner by way of due application of mind. It would not be out of place to mention here that the appellant has not come out with any Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited case that there is case of non-application of mind. The appellant has to positively prove that there is a case of non-application of mind considering the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would not be out of place to highlight that the relevant seized documents in a case are always part of the assessment records as per practice, and requirement of the work. They are not kept separately as relevant seized material is frequently referred to by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings and made part of assessment order most of the time. In fact, as per the law, seized material is considered as part of records before Assessing Officer and all such seized records, return of income, notices etc. used during an assessment proceeding when considered collectively is known as 'Assessment record'. In view of the same, it cannot be inferred in any manner that approval under section 153D of the Act was granted in mechanical manner without independent application of mind by the approving authority. Thus, it cannot be considered by any stretch of imagination that the approving authority could not apply his mind to the facts of the case and issues involved while granting approval under section 153D of the Act. The approving authority had sufficient time to go through all the records and relevant material to arrive at decision granting approval Under Section 153D of the 1.T Act in judicious manner in the instant case. Further, in search cases, a JCIT is aware about progress of the assessment proceedings, relevant issues of different assessee, nature and content of the seized material because the as per the CBDT guideline F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv. 11) dt. 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dt. 22.12.2006 about the search and Seizure Assesments clearly outlines such close coordination. Thus, as per the prevailing Practice and Guidelines, the approving authority has good idea of issues involved case before hand i.e. much before the cases are sent to him for approval Under Section 153D of the Act. This guideline of CBET is relevant piece of information, which throws light on the way search assessments are taken up by the filed officers. Therefore, considering such peculiar fact of instant case, it cannot be inferred that the JCIT could not independently apply his mind in judicial manner to the case of assessee. D. In this regard, it is further submitted that on perusal of case laws on the issue of requirements for proper approval under section 153D, it is found that Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent mind while granting Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited such an approval. Thus, all the cases have been decided on this point by Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High court considering peculiar facts of those cases only. Some of such peculiar facts of such cases are outlined here in under to emphasize upon distinguishing nature of facts of instant cases from those cases.: Case Name and Citation Peculiar Facts of cases in mentioned in first col. Distinguishing facts of the instant case HIGHCOURT OF DELHI in the case of PCIT vs.Anuj Bansal ITA 368/2023 Dated July 13,2023 -No Assessment records were sent along with draft assessment order -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income and Assessed income. -JCIT did not apply his mind as he did not notice such errors/infirmities. Appellant has not been ablve to prove that its case. Further, there is nothing on the record to suggest that in the instant case of the assessee, there were some factual infirmities in the order granting approval. None of the peculiar factual aspects are present in the instant case. Therefore, the case of Anuj Bansal had distinguishable facts than those of instant case. Bansal had distinguishable facts than those of instant case. HIGH COURT OF DELHI in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024] 163 taxmannn.com 9 (Delhi) The approval order failed 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 in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar, there was no fact brought on the record by the Revenue to prove that identical issues (involving similar facts) were involved in different cases submitted for approval by the AO. It was in absence of such factual information that granting of approval for 43 cases in a single day was viewed by the Hon’ble High Court. Facts of the instant case are distinguishable. ITAT NEW DELHI in the case of She Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Central Circle- 8 ITA The approving authority had granted approval in 232 cases in a single day. Therefore, issue of judicious approval for Facts of the instant case are distinguishable. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited No.2503/Del/2017 Dated 23.07.2024 such large number of cases from the angle of human limitations was an issue before Hon’ble Bench. E. Reliance is placed in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer Ward 2(3), Chennai [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras) wherein it was held that Reliance is placed in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. Income Offer an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure, the entire proceedings would be vitiated: 9. There is no statutory requirement to deal with the objections given by the assessee after receiving reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the LT. Act. However, there is a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. 's cas (supra) mandating such disposal of oblections before passing the assessment order. 10. that The Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s (supra) made it clear on receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to lassiance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by a speaking order the Assessing Officer has to pass a speaking order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is The judgment is very clear that before proceeding with the assessment proceedings, bound to pass an order and thereafter only further proceedings could be taken for passing the assessment order. It would not suffice by giving reasons to the objections in the assessment order, in view of the judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case (supra). 15 The applicant has raised two contentions in this appeal. (a)The assessment order passed in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court is void and it cannot be ratified by remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer. (b)The assessment order was passed just one day prior to the period of limitation and therefore, it would not be possible to pass a fresh order after giving disposal to the objections. 16. It is not in dispute that there is no statutory requirement to pass an order taking into account the statement of objections filed by the assessee after receiving the reasons for invoking Section 147 of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case (supra), has given a procedural safeguard to the assessee to avoid unnecessary harassment by directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order taking into account the objections for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the I.T. Act. 17. The forming of opinion to proceed further by disposal of the objections need not be a detailed consideration of all the facts and law applicable. It must show application of mind to the objections raised by the notice. In case the objections are Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited such that it would require a detailed examination of facts and application of legal provisions, taking into account the assessment order sought to be reopened, the string of violations, suppression of material particulars and transactions which would require considerable time and would be in the nature of a detailed adjudicatory process, the Assessing Officer can dispose of the objections, by giving his state 18. The disposal of objections is in the value of a procedural requirement to appraise the assessee of the actual grounds which made the Assessing Officer to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that there was escape of assessment warranting reopening the assessment proceedings. The disposal of such objection must be before the date of hearing and passing a fresh order of assessment. In case, on a consideration of the objection submitted submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer is of the proceedings. It is only when a decision was taken to overrule the objections, and to proceed further with the reassessment process, the Assessing Officer is obliged in give disposal to the statement of objections submitted by the assessee. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on an order passed order being one made without complying with mandatory procedure, is non-est in lave by the learned Single Judge in Mrs. Jayanthi Natrajan (cited supra) submitted that the and it cannot be given life by complying with the procedure later. In short, it is the contention that non-compliance of a prescribed procedure would nullify the order and the irregularity cannot be cured later. 26 We therefore make the position clear that non-compliance of the procedure Indicated in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd's case (supra) would not make the order void or non-est. Such a violation in the matter of procedure is only an irregularity which could be cured by remitting the matter to the authority. Later, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP raised in the matter. Further, reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP(C) No. 340 of 2019 against the order in IA 3123/2018 in OS 125/2018 of II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam dated 23.06.2022, wherein it is held that the \"5.........Courts should endevour to dispose of a case on merits rather than on default.\" The Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiyana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors on 09.06.2010 in Civil Appeal NO. 2395 of 2008 also held that \"......After all, justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold. Both sides had tried to argue the matter on merits but we refrain ourselves from touching the merits of the matter as that can best be done by the Executing Court which had denied an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and to prove the issues so formulated. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited In our opinion, ends of justice justice would be met by setting aside the Impinged orders is emitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of appellant's objections filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC on merits and in accordance with low, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party generally as a normal I rule, delay should be condoned in the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw le on such technicalities.\" It is further submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority about application of mind merely on the ground that number of cases approved in a day were high. There cannot be any threshold limit set for the same. How many cases will be considered unreasonably high and how many cases will be considered reasonable? It is submitted that every approval needs to be examined considering its peculiar facts such as number of issues involved, nature of issue involved, modus-operandi involved, number of cases involved and inter- relationship among facts of such cases. If identical issues are involved involving same modus-operandi and cases are of same search group only, it would not be unreasonable to consider that an approving authority will be able to apply its independent mind judiciously to relatively larger number of cases in a single day. Ultimately, it boils down to factual matrix of the cases sent for approval. In the instant case, in light of the factual matrix that additions were made in different cases of the group on the same ground based on same factual position with regard to same accommodation entry provider and involving same modus-operandi, it would be justified to consider that the approving authority would have been in a position to apply his mind to all such cases sent for approval by the AO on the same day, particularly when number of such cases is not too high and facts/issues involved are in the knowledge of approving authority beforehand i.e. before receiving proposal for approval. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is respectfully submitted that the fact of the instant cases are significantly distinguishable from the fact all those cases where Hon'ble Courts and Hon'ble Tribunal have held approval under section 153D as a mechanical approval without due application of mind by the approving authority. Moreover, content of the approval letter clearly establishes that while granting approval, the approving authority had considered facts of the case, assessment records and seized documents and had applied his mind independently. DR’S Final Submission. In the present case, a perusal of the assessee's Form 35 and the order of the learned C٤٤(A) would show that: The assessee never raised any specific ground before the CTTCA) challenging the validity, manner or character of the approval granted under section 153D of the Act. The assessee's grounds before the CIT(A) were directed against the quantum additions and M the highest, contained only a generic and omnibus challenge to the Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited \"validity/jurisdiction of the assessment, without any reference whatsoever to section153D. Consequently, the learned CIT(A) has not rendered any finding on the question of validity or otherwise of the approval under section 153D. In these circumstances, the two foundational conditions of Rule 27 are clearly not met: There was no specific section 153D ground before the CIT(A); and There is no adjudication \"against\" the assessee on section 153D in the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee now seeks, for the first time at the second appellate stage, to introduce afresh jurisdictional ground which does not \"emanate\" from the controversy decided by the CIT(A). This is outside the scope of Rule 27, which is confined to \"grounds decided against \"the Assessee and does not operate as a substitute for an appeal or cross-objection. Moreover, In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2801/Del/2024), The Delhi Bench (1) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) BENCH \"addressed additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, when the Department filed an appeal against the CIT (A) order. In this Case, the assessee invoked Rule 27 to raise a jurisdictional objection, contending that the assessment was void because the mandatory statutory approval required under Section 153D was granted in a \"mechanical manner\" without the due application of mind by the approving authority. The Department (Revenue) contended that the assessee's application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules should be rejected based on the following points: The Department argued that for a ground to be raised under Rule 27, it must have been filed before the previous appellate authority and subsequently decided against the respondent in that order. The Department noted that the respondent assessee had not taken any ground regarding \"mechanical approval\" under Section 153D before the Ld. CIT(A). Because the issue was never raised during the initial appellate proceedings, it was neither before the previous authority nor adjudicated against the assessee. The Department argued that the case laws relied upon by the assesse (such as 110 Gurinder Kaur) were distinguishable. In those cases, the grounds were fles expressed or inferred during proceedings even if not formally filed, however, in the case, the assessee had not mentioned Section 153D at any point during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s additional ground raised under Rule 27 for the following reasons: Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited 1. Failure to Meet the \"Decided Against\" Criterion The ITAT emphasized that under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, a respondent can only support an order on grounds that were specifically decided against them by the lower authority. The Tribunal found that the issue of irregularity in granting approval s. 153D was never specifically adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Para 5.5, Page 22. 2. Lack of Specific Challenge in Original Grounds The Revenue argued, and the Tribunal agreed, that the assessee's original grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) were too general to include a specific challenge to Section 153D. While the assessee raised a \"generic ground\" (Ground No. 2 in Form 35) challenging the assessment's validity, it did not specifically question the irregularity of the 153D approval. Para5.5, Page 22. 3. Application of the Sanjay Sawhney Precedent The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Sanjay Sawhney vs. PCIT to define the scope of Rule 27. In Sanjay Sawhney, the legal issue (Section 153C) had been explicitly raised and rejected by the CIT(A). In the present case, since the 153D issue was not part of the first appellate proceedings, it failed the test for invocation under Rule 27. Para 5.5, Page 21 and Para5.7, Page 24. The Tribunal concluded that because the ground did not \"directly emanate\" from the grounds filed before the CIT(A) and was not decided against the assessee in the impugned order, it could not be admitted. Para 5.7, Page 24. 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 (being common approval for all assessment years) and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed.\" Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules states, as reproduced below: \"Respondent may support order on grounds decided against him. The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. As stated in the Rule above, the prerequisites and conditions for eligibility of filing application under this Rule are, as under: Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited (i) the ground(s) should have been filed before the previous appellate authority, and (ii) the ground(s) should have been decided against the respondent in the order appealed against. From the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it can be observed that: The assessee had not taken any ground w.r.t. mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act (as stated in Additional Ground No.1) and therefore this ground was neither before the previous appellate authority nor was it adjudicated against the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent beyond doubt that the assessee does not satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and hence, is NOT eligible to file application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules in the present appeal of Revenue. In view of the above it is respectfully submitted to kindly take on record the above objections and reject the contention of the assessee on this ground and uphold the order of assessing officer. 9. Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent assessee submitted that despite application for additional ground of appeal regarding approval u/s 153D being mechanical and arbitrary, the Department has not placed on record common approval for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 as mentioned in Assessment Orders dated 31.03.2014 on page 18, 40 & 57 of PB. ITAT in ITA No.6881/Del/2014 titled as DCIT vs. Rakesh Sharma vide order dated 23.01.2016 has been decided against the Revenue. 10. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders dated 30.09.2014 set aside the separate orders dated 31.03.2014 of Ld. AO for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2012-13. 11. The Department of Revenue has challenged the orders of Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.09.2014. 12. Respondent assessee pleaded additional ground that the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act being mechanical and arbitrary approval without being any application of mind and also without satisfying statutory pre-conditions of the Act Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited being common approval for all assessment years and as such the assessment so framed is null and void is deserves to be quashed. 13. Assessment Orders dated 31.03.2024 u/s 153A/153(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2012-13 of the PB Page 18, 40 and 57 mentioned as under: “Page 18 This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter no. F. No. 153D/CC-16/2013-14/1335 dated 30.03.2014. Page 40 This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter no. F. No. 153D/CC-16/2013-14/1335 dated 30.03.2014. Page 57 This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter no. F. No. 153D/CC-16/2013-14/1335 dated 30.03.2014.” 14. The Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.688/Del/2014 titled as DCIT, Central Circle-20, vs. Ramesh Sharma order dated 23.01.2026 in para No. 3 to 9 held as under: “3. We have carefully considered the prayer for admission of additional ground and heard both the counsels on the issue. In our considered opinion in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC), we admit the following additional ground raised by Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited the assessee as the same is a purely legal ground and goes to the root of the matter. “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 mechanic al 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.” 4. At the outset, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee in support of the aforesaid Additional Ground No. 1 so raised in Rule 27 application by the assessee- respondent, submitted that in the instant matter, approval under section 153D of the Act is a common approval bearing common numbers i.e. 153D/CC- 16/2013-14/1334 dated 30.03.2013. It was further submitted that the said common approval pertains to 7 assessment years i.e. AY 2006-07 to 2012-13, which has been accorded by Ld. Addl. CIT under section 153D of the Act. To support his contention, he filed the copies of assessment years under section 153A/143(3) of the Act in the aforesaid matters at Paper Book Serial No. 2 to 8 at pages 11, 22, 32, 44, 58, 64 and 68 which shows that common approval is accorded by the Addl. CIT. Even though, the copy of approval u/s. 153D has not been submitted by the Revenue, despite specific directions given by the Hon’ble Bench on various occasions. However, still bare perusal of the common approval number makes it amply clear that the approval accorded under section 153D of the Act in the instant case is a mechanical approval without there being separate approval for “each assessment year”. He relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of the assessee’s wife namely Smt. Usha Sharma in ITA No. 480/Del/2015 under similar circumstances. He further relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Sant Lal Aggrawal group in ITA No. 6195/Del/2017, pertaining to same group, wherein, identical issue has been decided by the ITAT, Delhi and wherein, it has been held that approval under section 153D is bad in law and thus, assessments so made are vitiated in law, under similar circumstances. He further relied upon various case laws including the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 dated 15/05/2024 in ITA No. 285/2024 (CMP No. 28994/2024), sought for allowing the Additional Ground of Appeal and prayed for quashing the assessment order and also dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the draft assessment order has been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while according approval u/s 153D of the Act, which was made available in the file and the approval has been granted and there is no absence of application Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited of mind, thus sought for dismissal of the Additional Ground of Appeal and also requested to allow the appeal of the Revenue. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and also verified, material available on record and the case laws cited. The legal objection of transgression of requirement of approval under s. 153D of the Act is in question which has the effect on the very substratum of the assessment and consequential appellate proceedings. 7. For the purpose of deciding the issue of legality of approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act and the consequential assessment proceedings, we find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Sr. Counsel that in the instant matter, approval under section 153D of the Act is a common approval bearing common numbers i.e. 153D/CC-16/2013-14/1334 dated 30.03.2013. It is noted that the said common approval pertains to 6 assessment years i.e. AY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 to 2012-13, which have been accorded by Ld. Addl. CIT under section 153D of the Act. We find that in assessment orders passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act placed at Paper Book Serial No. 2, 3, 5 to 8 at pages 11, 22, 44, 58, 64 and 68 which shows that exactly common approval with common numbers are accorded by the Addl. CIT. For the sake of clarity, we may gainfully refer here the common approval for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009- 10 to 2012-13 mentioned at page nos. 11, 22, 44, 58, 64 & 68 of the Paper Book mentioned against Serial No. 2, 3, 5 to 8 of the Paper Book of the Assessee. “AY 2006-07 (Paper Book Page No. 11) 22. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter No. F.No. 153D/CC-16/2013- 14/1334 dated 30.3.2014. AY 2007-08 (Paper Book Page No. 22) 16. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter No. F.No. 153D/CC-16/2013- 14/1334 dated 30.3.2014. AY 2009-10 (Paper Book Page No. 44) 18. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter No. F.No. 153D/CC-16/2013- 14/1334 dated 30.3.2014. AY 2010-11 (Paper Book Page No. 58) Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited 19. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter No. F.No. 153D/CC-16/2013- 14/1334 dated 30.3.2014. AY 2011-12 (Paper Book Page No. 64) 12. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter No. F.No. 153D/CC-16/2013- 14/1334 dated 30.3.2014. AY 2012-13 (Paper Book Page No. 68) 13. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi received vide letter No. F.No. 153D/CC-16/2013- 14/1334 dated 30.3.2014.” 7.1 On perusing the aforesaid, it is amply clear that the common approval with common numbers have been accorded under section 153D of the Act in the instant case is a mechanical approval. We further find that the Coordinate Bench in the case of the assessee’s wife namely Smt. Usha Sharma in ITA No. 480/Del/2015 under similar circumstances has quashed the assessment by allowing the similar additional ground of appeal. We further find that the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Sant Lal Aggrawal group in ITA No. 6195/Del/2017, pertaining to same group, on identical issue has held that approval under section 153D is bad in law and thus, assessments so made are vitiated in law, under similar circumstances. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com 9 dated 15/05/2024 in ITA No. 285/2024 (CMP No. 28994/2024), held as under:- “11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for \"each assessment year\" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase- \"each assessment year\" used in the language of Section 153D of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited \"13. 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, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 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 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. *** 19. 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.\" [Emphasis supplied] 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 and Co. [2023 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:- Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited \"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 Commissioner of Income-tax. 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 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 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 \"seen\" 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 Assessing Officer 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.\" [Emphasis supplied] 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 decision in the case of Serajuddin (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023. 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited \"10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for seven assessment years in the case of the assessee and for seven assessment years in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact is not in dispute before us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessees, which information is not available before us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, 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.” 8. Significantly, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) had an occasion to examine substantial question of law on the propriety of approval granted under s. 153D of the Act. The Orissa High Court made wide ranging observations towards the manner and legality of approval under s. 153D of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court inter-alia Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited observed that the approval under s. 153D of the Act being mandatory, while elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that approving authority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of law. The approving authority is expected to indicate his thought process while granting approval, held that it is not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the Court finds that the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. The Hon’ble High Court inter-alia observed that there is no even a token mention that draft order has been perused by the Ld. Addl. CIT. The approval letter simply grants approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of approving authority having to indicate what thought process involved leading to the aforementioned approval has not been provided. As explained, the mere repeating of words of the Statue or mere rubber stamping of the communication seeking sanction by using similar words like ‘approval’ will not, by itself, meet the requirement of law. The Hon’ble Court made reference to manual issued by the CBDT in the context of erstwhile section 158BG of the Act and observed that such manual serves as a guideline to the AOs. Since it was issued by CBDT, the powers of issuing such guidelines can be traced to section 119 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also held that non-compliance of requirement of section 153D of the Act is not a mere procedural irregularity and lapse committed by Revenue may vitiate the assessment order. The SLP filed against the aforesaid judgement in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata was dismissed as reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC). 9. The ratio of judgement delivered in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata; PCIT vs Anuj Bansal; PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar; and PCIT vs Subhash Dabas (supra) has held in chorus that the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act, if granted mechanically, will vitiate the assessment order itself. Hence, applying the ratio of judgements delivered as noted above, the assessment order based on ritualistic approval stands vitiated and thus quashed by allowing additional Ground of appeal of the Assessee. 15. In view of above material facts and judicial precedent, it is held that the common approval accorded u/s 153D dated 31.03.2024 is mechanical and arbitrary approval without their being any application of mind for all the years as such the assessment orders being null and void are quashed. Therefore, the additional ground of appeal is allowed. Grounds of Appeal of Revenue being infructuous are rejected. Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA Nos.6874 to 6876/Del/2014 DCIT vs. M/s Raus Infras Limited ITA No.6875/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2011-12 & ITA No.6876/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2012-13 16. As stated above, the ground and facts in these appeals are identical and both the parties have stated similar arguments, thus, observations made hereinabove in ITA No.6874/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2010-11 are mutatis mutandis applied in both appeals i.e. ITA No.6875/Del/2014 for Asst. Year 2012-13 and ITA No.6876/Del/2014 for Asst. Year 2014-15. 17. In the final result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed Order is pronounced in the Open Court 27.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2026 *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "