Mysore Finlease Private Limited, New Delhi V. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ITA 8821/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9222 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69; 132; 139; 143(3); 153A; 13; 153; 22; 153C

Judgement Text

Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.No Name of assessee PAN Relevant ITA number Assessment Year 1. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd AAACM6761B 8821/del/2019 2011-12 2. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd AAACM6761B 8822/del/2019 2012-13 3. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd AAACM6761B 8823/de/2019 2013-14 4. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd AAACM6761B 8824/del/2019 2014-15 5. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd AAACM6761B 8825/del/2019 2015-16 6. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd AAACM6761B 8826/del/2019 2016-17 7. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8827/del/2019 2010-11 8. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8828/del/2019 2011-12 9. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8829/del/2019 2012-13 10. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8830/del/2019 2013-14 11. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8831/del/2019 2014-15 12. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8832/del/2019 2015-16 13. Deepak Agarwal ADKPA0795K 8833/del/2019 2016-17 14. Shakumbhari Agrofarm Pvt ltd AAQCS3037E 8834/del/2019 2012-13 15. Radhika Clothings Ltd AAFCR1236F 8856/del/2019 2012-13 16. Radhika Clothings Ltd AAFCR1236F 8857/del/2019 2013-14 17. Radhika Clothings Ltd AAFCR1236F 8858/del/2019 2014-15 18. Radhika Clothings Ltd AAFCR1236F 8859/del/2019 2015-16 19. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd AANCS8289D 8862/del/2019 2011-12 20. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd AANCS8289D 8863/del/2019 2013-14 21. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd AANCS8289D 8864/del/2019 2014-15 22. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd AANCS8289D 8865/del/2019 2015-16 23. Sperryn Gas Products Limited AANCS4610E 8866/del/2019 2010-11 24. Sperryn Gas Products Limited AANCS4610E 8867/del/2019 2011-12 25. Sperryn Gas Products Limited AANCS4610E 8868/del/2019 2013-14 26. Sperryn Gas products Limited AANCS4610E 8869/del/2019 2015-16 27. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta) AEWPG7760B 8872/del/2019 2012-13 28. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohit gupta AEWPG7760B 8873/del/2019 2013-14 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 2 29. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohit gupta AEWPG7760B 8874/del/2019 2015-16 30. QED venture Advisors Private Limited AAACQ1787H 8875/del/2019 2012-13 31. QED venture Advisors Private Limited AAACQ1787H 8876/del/2019 2013-14 32. QED venture advisors private limited AAACQ1787H 8877/del/2019 2015-16 33. Brij Kishore BBIPK1486N 8878/del/2019 2010-11 34. Brij Kishore (revenue appeal) BBIPK1486N 8788/del/2019 2010-11 35. Brij Kishore BBIPK1486N 8879/del/2019 2011-12 36. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd AABCI1389J 8880/del/2019 2010-11 37. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd AABCI1389J 8881/del/2019 2011-12 38. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd AABCI1389J 8882/del/2019 2014-15 39. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd AABCI1389J 8883/del/2019 2015-16 40. Shridhar Portfolio management ltd AANCS8289D 8861/del/2019 2010-11 Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/12/2023 Date of pronouncement 10/01/2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. The above 39 appeals filed by the respective assessees arise from common order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -23, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A)] on 31.8.2019. One cross appeal has been filed by the revenue in the case of Brij Kishore in ITA No. 8788/Del/2019 for Asst Year 2010-11. 2. Issues involved are identical in nature in all the appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 3 3. Each of the respective assessees had filed identical additional grounds also before us on 7.10.2021 stating that the search assessment was framed pursuant to the approval granted under section [u/s in short] 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟] by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4 Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the „ld. JCIT‟] in a mechanical manner and accordingly, the entire search assessments deserve to be quashed. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, the additional grounds raised by the assessee go to the root of the matter and those being legal issues and facts relevant for their adjudication are already on record, we are inclined to admit those additional grounds and take up the same for adjudication first. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 23.7.2015 and on subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Shri Deepak Agarwal and Shri Mukesh Kumar and other cases of Mukesh Kumar Group and Deepak Agarwal Group based at Delhi. According to the investigation wing, these groups were found to be interconnected with each other and with some group of entry operators providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loans , purchase and sale bills etc. Various incriminating documents were found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation in the group cases. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was also centralized to ACIT , Central Circle 13, New Delhi vide order passed u/s 127 of the Act . Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to various assessees and the returns filed by the respective parties for various Asst Years are tabulated hereunder:- S.N o Name of assessee Relevant ITA number Assessme nt Year Date of Notice u/s 153A Date of ROI filed Returned income 1. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 2011-12 01/09/2017 14/11/2017 (Rs 16,230) 2. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8822/del/2019 2012-13 01/09/2017 14/11/2017 (Rs 15,32,520) 3. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8823/de/2019 2013-14 01/09/2017 14/11/2017 (Rs 20,24,960) 4. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8824/del/2019 2014-15 01/09/2017 14/11/2017 (Rs 19,34,310) Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 4 5. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8825/del/2019 2015-16 01/09/2017 14/11/2017 (Rs 35,19,800) 6. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8826/del/2019 2016-17 19/09/2017 (143(2) notice for search year) 17/10/2016 (Rs 17,77,850) 7. Deepak Agarwal 8827/del/2019 2010-11 10/07/2017 11/08/2017 Different figures noted in para 3 (Rs 8,16,733) and final income computation Rs 9,50,830 8. Deepak Agarwal 8828/del/2019 2011-12 10/07/2017 11/08/2017 (Rs 8,16,733) 9. Deepak Agarwal 8829/del/2019 2012-13 10/07/2017 11/08/2017 Different figures noted in para 3 (Rs 8,16,733) and final income computation Rs 16,01,650) 10. Deepak Agarwal 8830/del/2019 2013-14 10/07/2017 11/08/2017 Different figures noted in para 3 (Rs 8,16,733) and final income computation Rs 17,73,340) 11. Deepak Agarwal 8831/del/2019 2014-15 10/07/2017 11/08/2017 Different figures noted in para 3 (Rs 8,16,733) and final income computation Rs 18,61,880) 12. Deepak Agarwal 8832/del/2019 2015-16 10/07/2017 11/08/2017 (Rs 17,76,740) 13. Deepak Agarwal 8833/del/2019 2016-17 11/10/2017 27/03/2017 Different figures noted in para 3 (Rs 8,16,733) and final income computation Rs 20,21,860 14. Shakumbhari Agrofarm Pvt ltd 8834/del/2019 2012-13 21/11/2017 05/12/2017 Rs 4,660 15. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8856/del/2019 2012-13 10/07/2017 09/08/2017 Rs 1,21,310 16. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8857/del/2019 2013-14 10/07/2017 09/08/2017 Rs 3,57,660 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 5 17. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8858/del/2019 2014-15 10/07/2017 09/08/2017 Rs 3,08,050 18. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8859/del/2019 2015-16 10/07/2017 28/03/2017 Rs 1,71,060 19. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8862/del/2019 2011-12 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Loss of Rs 47,252 20. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8863/del/2019 2013-14 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 4,87,400 21. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8864/del/2019 2014-15 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 3,22,670 22. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8865/del/2019 2015-16 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 14,43,320 23. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8866/del/2019 2010-11 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 24,173 24. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8867/del/2019 2011-12 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Different figures noted in page 2 (Rs 24,173) and final income computation Rs 47,252 (loss) 25. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8868/del/2019 2013-14 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 131,560 26. Sperryn Gas products Limited 8869/del/2019 2015-16 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 370,650 27. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta) 8872/del/2019 2012-13 02/09/2016 04/10/2016 Rs 538,850 28. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta 8873/del/2019 2013-14 02/09/2016 04/10/2016 Rs 496,800 29. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta 8874/del/2019 2015-16 02/09/2016 04/10/2016 Rs 489,340 30. QED venture Advisors Private Limited 8875/del/2019 2012-13 10/07/2017 04/09/2017 Loss of Rs 41,141 31. QED venture Advisors Private Limited 8876/del/2019 2013-14 10/07/2017 06/09/2017 Rs 4,810 32. QED venture advisors private limited 8877/del/2019 2015-16 10/07/2017 04/09/2017 Rs 1,12,590 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 6 33. Brij Kishore 8878/del/2019 2010-11 02/09/2016 20/10/2016 Different figures noted in para 2 Rs 3,70,292 And income computation Rs 2,49,937 34. Brij Kishore (revenue appeal) 8788/del/2019 2010-11 02/09/2016 20/10/2016 Different figures noted in para 2 Rs 3,70,292 And income computation Rs 2,49,937 35. Brij Kishore 8879/del/2019 2011-12 02/09/2016 20/10/2016 3,70,292 36. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8880/del/2019 2010-11 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 4,39,546 37. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8881/del/2019 2011-12 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Loss of Rs 1,07,371 38. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8882/del/2019 2014-15 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 84,300 39. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8883/del/2019 2015-16 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Rs 24,515 40. Shridhar Portfolio management ltd 8861/del/2019 2010-11 02/09/2016 06/11/2017 Loss of Rs 21,442 5. We find that the assessments have been made u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2017 and on 26.12.2017 , as the case may be, after making the following additions :- S.No Name of assessee Relevant ITA number Assessme nt Year Date of impugned assessment order Additions made (amount Rs) 1. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 Rs 10,81,00,000 2. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8822/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 Rs 47,74,74,400 3. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8823/de/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 2,46,60,870 4. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8824/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 Rs 7,52,91,740 5. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8825/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 4,28,397,667 6. Mysore Finlease PvtLtd 8826/del/2019 2016-17 29.12.2017 Rs 3,05,94,830 7. Deepak Agarwal 8827/del/2019 2010-11 29.12.2017 Rs 8,97,12,267 8. Deepal Agarwal 8828/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 Rs 8,36,84,207 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 7 9. Deepak Agarwal 8829/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 Rs 9,15,27,869 10. Deepak Agarwal 8830/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 6,31,27,795 11. Deepak Agarwal 8831/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 Rs 7,16,51,028 12. Deepak Agarwal 8832/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 7,82,40,117 13. Deepak Agarwal 8833/del/2019 2016-17 29.12.2017 Rs 1,49,83,287 14. ShakumbhariAgrofarmPv tltd 8834/del/2019 2012-13 26.12.2017 Rs 69,00,000 15. RadhikaClothings Ltd 8856/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 Rs 46,95,610 16. RadhikaClothings Ltd 8857/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 44,08,040 17. RadhikaClothings Ltd 8858/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 Rs 42,97,378 18. RadhikaClothings Ltd 8859/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 29,48,030 19. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8862/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 Rs 18,81,67,160 20. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8863/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 43,50,826 21. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8864/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 Rs 46,17,828 22. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8865/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 1,55,03,131 23. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8866/del/2019 2010-11 29.12.2017 Rs 10,07,96,672 24. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8867/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 Rs 18,00,43,374 25. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8868/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 3,83,41,800 26. Sperryn Gas products Limited 8869/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 9,82,17,490 27. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta) 8872/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 Rs 87,70,300 28. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta 8873/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 34,09,492 29. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta 8874/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 79,80,647 30. QED venture Advisors Private Limited 8875/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 Rs 11,49,12,860 31. QED venture Advisors Private Limited 8876/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 Rs 11,49,54,000 32. QED venture advisors private limited 8877/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 36,12,360 33. Brij Kishore 8878/del/2019 8788/del/2019 2010-11 2010-11 29.12.2017 Rs 73,32,53,263 34. Brij Kishore (revenue sole appeal) 29.12.2017 35. Brij Kishore 8879/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 Rs 5,21,00,100 36. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8880/del/2019 2010-11 29.12.2017 Rs 15,73,53,200 37. I-Tech insurance brokers 8881/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 Rs 95,77,552 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 8 Pvt Ltd 38. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8882/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 Rs 24,69,010 39. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8883/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 Rs 47,54,276 40. Shridhar Portfolio management ltd 8861/del/2019 2010-11 Rs 14,20,09,896 6. It would be relevant to note that the approval u/s 153D of the Act had been accorded by the ld. JCIT within a short span of time of either one day or on the same day on which draft orders were forwarded to him. The details of various draft orders forwarded by the ld. AO to the ld. JCIT for various assessment years and the date of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act by the ld. JCIT for various assessees are tabulated hereunder:- S.No Name of assessee Relevant ITA number Assessment Year Date of forwarding of approval of “only” draft assessment orders Date of Final approval u/s 153D 1. Mysore FinleasePvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 2. Mysore FinleasePvt Ltd 8822/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 3. Mysore FinleasePvt Ltd 8823/de/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 4. Mysore FinleasePvt Ltd 8824/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 5. Mysore FinleasePvt Ltd 8825/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 6. Mysore FinleasePvt Ltd 8826/del/2019 2016-17 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 7. Deepak Agarwal 8827/del/2019 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 8. Deepak Agarwal 8828/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 9. Deepak Agarwal 8829/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 10. Deepak Agarwal 8830/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 11. Deepak Agarwal 8831/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 12. Deepak Agarwal 8832/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 13. Deepak Agarwal 8833/del/2019 2016-17 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 14. Shakumbhari Agrofarm Pvt ltd 8834/del/2019 2012-13 22.12.2017 23.12.2017 15. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8856/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 16. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8857/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 17. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8858/del/2019 2014-15 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 18. Radhika Clothings Ltd 8859/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 19. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8862/del/2019 2011-12 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 9 20. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8863/del/2019 2013-14 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 21. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8864/del/2019 2014-15 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 22. Shridhar Portfolio Management Ltd 8865/del/2019 2015-16 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 23. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8866/del/2019 2010-11 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 24. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8867/del/2019 2011-12 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 25. Sperryn Gas Products Limited 8868/del/2019 2013-14 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 26. Sperryn Gas products Limited 8869/del/2019 2015-16 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 27. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta) 8872/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 28. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta 8873/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 29. Late Nem Chand Gupta (through legal heir mohitgupta 8874/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 30. QED venture Advisors Private Limited 8875/del/2019 2012-13 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 31. QED venture Advisors Private Limited 8876/del/2019 2013-14 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 32. QED venture advisors private limited 8877/del/2019 2015-16 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 33. Brij Kishore 8878/del/2019 8788/del/2019 2010-11 2010-11 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 34. Brij Kishore (revenue sole appeal) 29.12.2017 35. Brij Kishore 8879/del/2019 2011-12 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 36. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8880/del/2019 2010-11 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 37. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8881/del/2019 2011-12 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 38. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8882/del/2019 2014-15 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 39. I-Tech insurance brokers Pvt Ltd 8883/del/2019 2015-16 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 40. Shridhar Portfolio management ltd 8861/del/2019 2010-11 28.12.2017 29.12.2017 7. We find that the ld. 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 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 10 objection that the said statutory approval granted by the ld. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act enabling the ld. AO to complete the search assessment, was a mere mechanical approval without due application of mind on the part of the ld. JCIT. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the meaning of 'approval' as contemplated u/s 153D of the Act is that the ld. 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 ld. 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 ld. 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 ld. JCIT on 29.12.2017 and the ld. 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 ld. 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 ld. JCIT by the ld AO. Based on this, the Ld. AR submitted that the ld. JCIT had granted approval by devoting very few minutes for each case in a mechanical manner u/s 153D of the Act without due application of mind. Moreover, the approval letter granted u/s 153D by the ld. JCIT for all the seven assessment years, clearly states that the draft assessment orders per se were placed by the Ld. AO before the ld. 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 ld. 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 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 11 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. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently argued that the role of ld. JCIT, Central Range is totally different from the role of a JCIT in the normal range. He argued that in a Central Range, the ld. JCIT is involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing and is involved with the Ld. AO from time to time while issuing various questionnaires to the assessee. The ld. JCIT in Central Range also examine the seized documents in detail immediately after receipt of the appraisal report and provides able assistance to the Ld. AO about the interpretation of the said seized documents while issuing questionnaires to assessee, examining the replies filed by the assessee and drawing conclusions thereon. Hence, it is very easy for the ld. JCIT to grant approval of the draft assessment order on the same day since he is involved with the assessment proceedings right from the inception. Accordingly, he argued that the objection raised by the Ld. AR has no force. Further, the Ld. DR vehemently argued that bare reading of provisions of section 153D of the Act talks only about existence of approval from the ld. JCIT. There is no mention of application of mind on the part of the ld. JCIT or the approving authority in the said section. The expression „application of mind‟ is only provided by the Judicial decisions and not provided in the statute. Hence the Ld. DR argued that literal interpretation is to be given to the provisions of section 153D of the Act which does not provide for application of mind of the approving authority and hence any other interpretation contrary to the same would only result in re-writing the law. 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 ld. JCIT in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a mandatory requirement of law. The said approval granting proceedings by the ld. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 12 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 ld. JCIT well in time much before the due date of completion of search assessment. The ld. 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 ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind. Even though as vehemently argued by the Ld. CIT-DR, the ld. JCIT is involved with the search assessment proceedings right from the time of receipt of appraisal report from the Investigation Wing, still, the ld. 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 ld. 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 ld. JCIT u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. 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 ld. JCIT getting involved in the search assessment proceedings right from the receipt of copy of appraisal report, as argued Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 13 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 ld. 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 ld. 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 ld. JCIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act to the draft assessment orders placed by the Ld. AO. 10. Let us now examine whether in the aforesaid background of the scheme of the Act, whether the approval in terms of section 153D of the Act has been granted by the ld. JCIT in a judicious way after due application of mind or not, in the instant case. 11. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. JCIT on the date mentioned in the table hereinabove u/s 153D of the Act. The said approval letter clearly states that a letter dated 29.12.2017 was filed by the Ld. AO before the ld. JCIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. JCIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 29.12.2017 for various assessment years in the case of various assessees. In any event, whether is it humanly possible for an approving authority like the ld. JCIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 40 cases for various assessment years on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D of the Act provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. JCIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together. We find that the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT, Circle 1(2), Bhubaneshwar vs. M/s Serajuddin & Co. in ITA Nos. 39 to 45 of 2022 Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 14 dated 15.03.2023 is well founded. The question before the Hon'ble Orissa High Court is as under:- "Whet her on the fa cts and ci rcumst ances t he ITAT wa s correct in holdi ng that the approving aut hority has not appli ed his mind for giving app rova l u/ s 153 D?" 12. In the case before the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, the approval of draft assessment orders was placed by the AO before the Addl.CIT on 27/29.12.2010 for seven assessment years. The approval was granted by the Addl. Commissioner for seven assessment years u/s 153D of the Act on 30.12.2010 by merely saying that the draft orders submitted by the officer in the above case for the seven assessment years are hereby approved. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court took note of this fact and quashed the search assessment and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding as under:- "22. As rig htly poi nt ed out by l ea rned couns el for the A sses see t here is not ev en a token ment ion o f the dra ft order s hav ing been perus ed by the Addit ional C IT. The l etter simp ly grants an approv al. In other words, ev en t he ba r e minimum req uir em ent of the appr oving author ity havi ng to indi cat e w hat the thoug ht pro cess inv olved was is missi ng in the a for em ent ioned approva l ord er. W hil e el abor ate reaso ns need not be giv en, ther e has t o be som e i ndi cati on that the app rovi ng autho rity has exam ined the dr aft o rder s a nd f inds that it meets t he req uir em ent of the la w. As expla i ned i n the abov e cas es, the m er e r epeati ng of the words o f the st atut e, or m er e "rubb er st ampi ng" of t he lett er seeki ng sanctio n by using simil ar word s lik e 'seen' or 'approv ed' will not satis fy t he r equi rem ent of the l aw. This is w here the T echni cal M anual of O ffi ce Pro cedur e becom es i mport ant. Although, it was in t he cont ext of S ect ion 1 58B G of the A ct, it would equally app ly to Sectio n 153 D o f t he A ct. Ther e ar e t hr ee or fo ur req uir em ent s that a re mand ated t herei n, (i) t he A O sho uld submit t he d ra ft as sess ment order "w ell in tim e". Here it w as subm itted j ust tw o day s pr i or to t he deadl ine ther eby put ting the approv ing a uthor ity und er g reat press ur e and not givi ng him suf fi ci ent t ime to apply his m ind; ( ii) the fi na l approva l must be i n writi ng; (iii ) The fact that approva l has been obtained, s hould be ment ioned i n the bo dy of the as ses sm ent order . 23. In the pr es ent case, it is an ad mitt ed position t hat t he a sses sment order s ar e total ly sil ent abo ut the A O ha ving writt en to the Additional CIT s eek ing his appr oval or of t he Additi onal CIT havi ng gr a nted s uch approva l. Int er est ingly, the a ssessm ent orders wer e pas sed on 30t h December 2 010 wit hout m entio ni ng the above fa ct. Thes e t wo ord ers Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 15 wer e t herefor e not in compl ia nce with the req uir em ent sp elt out in para 9 of t he M anual of Of fi cia l Pro ced ur e. 24. The ab ove ma nual is meant a s a guid eli ne to the AOs. Si nce it w as issued by the CB DT , the powers for is s uing such guidelines can be traced to Sectio n 1 19 of the A ct. It has been held i n a seri es o f judgm ents that the instr ucti ons und er Sect ion 1 19 o f the Act a re certai nly b indi ng o n the Depa rtm ent. In Comm iss ioner of C ustoms v. Indi an Oil Co rpor ati on Ltd. 20 04 (1 65) E.L.T. 257 ( S.C. ) the S upr em e Court ob served as under: "Desp ite t he cat ego rical l anguag e of t he cla rif icatio n by the Constit utio n Bench, the iss ue was ag a in soug ht to be r ai sed befo re a B ench of three Judges in C entra l Boa rd of C ent ral Excise, Vadod ara v. Dhi ren Chemi ca ls Industri es: 200 2 ( 1 43) ELT 19 wher e the vi ew o f the Co nstit uti on B ench r eg ardi ng the binding nat ur e of circula rs i ssued und er S ection 37B of the Cent ra l Excise A ct, 194 4 was r eit er ated after it was dr aw n to the attentio n o f the Court by t he Rev enue that ther e were in fa ct cir cula rs i ssued by the C ent ral Bo ard of Ex cis e and Custo ms whi ch g ave a di f fer ent int erp ret atio n to the phras e as interpr eted by the C onstit ution Bench. The s ame v iew has al so been taken in Si mplex Ca sting s Ltd. v. Commiss ioner of Custo ms, Vis hak hap atna m 2 003 (5 ) SC C 528. T he p rincip les laid down by al l thes e d ecisio ns ar e: (1 ) Alt hough a ci r cul ar is not binding on a Co urt o r an ass ess ee, it i s not open to the Rev enue to rai se t he co ntenti on that is co ntra ry t o a bi nding ci rcul ar by the Board . When a circula r r em ains i n op erat ion, t he Rev enue is bound by it and ca nnot be allo wed to pl ead that it is not va lid nor that it i s co ntr ar y to the t erm s of t he statut e. (2) Despit e the d eci sion o f t his Court, t he Dep art ment cannot be per mitted to tak e a stand co ntr ary to the instr ucti ons Issued by the Bo ard. (3) A sho w caus e notice a nd dema nd cont rary to exist ing cir culars of t he Boa r d are ab i nitio b ad (4) It i s not open t o the Rev enue to a dvance an arg um ent or fil e a n app eal co ntra ry to the ci rcul ars." 25. Fo r all of the a for ementio ned r eas o ns, t he Co urt fi nds that t he ITAT ha s co rr ect ly set out t he leg al p osition while hold ing that the requir em ent o f p rior approv al o f t he superio r o ffi cer b ef ore an ord er of a ss essm ent or rea ssessm ent is pa ssed p ur sua nt to a s ear ch oper ation is a ma nd atory r equir em ent o f Sectio n 15 3D o f t he A ct a nd that such approv al i s not m eant to b e g iven m echa ni cal ly. T he Court also concurs w ith t he find ing o f the IT AT that i n the pr es ent cas es such app rova l w as grant ed m echa ni ca ll y witho ut app li catio n of mind by the Add itional C IT r es ulti ng i n v iti ating the ass ess ment ord er s them selv es. Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 16 26. T he questio n of l aw fr am ed i s therefor e answered in the aff irm ativ e i. e., i n f a vour o f the Ass ess ee and ag ai nst the Dep artm ent. 27. T he app ea ls ar e a cco rding ly di smi ss ed, b ut i n t he cir cumstances, with no ord er as to costs." 13. Further, we find that similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case PCIT vs. Subodh Aggarwal in Income-tax Appeal No.86/2022 dated 12.12.2022. In this case, the draft assessment order was placed for approval before the Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The approval u/s 153D was granted by the Addl. CIT on 31.12.2017. The final assessment order was passed by the AO on 31.12.2017. The time limit for completion of search assessment was 31.12.2017. 38 cases were approved by the Addl.CIT u/s 153D of the Act on 31.12.2017. In this background, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under:- "The subm issi on is t hat t he sub stant ia l quest ion of la w w hi ch ar ises for cons ideratio n bef ore this Co urt i s abo ut the j usti fi cat ion o f the act of the Trib una l in i gnori ng the fi ndi ng s record ed by the Assessi ng Off icer and s etting asid e the ass es sment ord er o n t he sol e ground o f def ect i n the approv al to the d ra ft a ssessment o rder g rant ed by th e comp etent Approvi ng Author ity. Lea rned couns el f or the Assessee, how ever , def end ed the ord er of the trib una l for the reaso ni ng given ther ei n. Consid er ing the sub missio ns of t he l ea rned couns el fo r the p arti es a nd havi ng p erused the order of the Tr ibunal, i n vi ew of the undisput ed fa cts befor e us abo ut the ma nner i n w hich the app rova l to the dr af t ass essm ent o rder wa s grant ed und er Section 15 3D f or the as sess ment proceed ings, by a l etter dat ed 3 1.1 2.20 17 in 38 ca ses p la ced befor e the app roving author ity in a sing le day , w e ar e req uir ed to ex ami ne as to whether a s ubst anti al q uest ion of l aw aris es fo r cons i derat ion befo re us so as to a dmit the pr esent app eal. To ans wer the s am e, w e a re req ui red to go throug h the rel eva nt provisio ns o f the Income Tax A ct. S ectio n 13 2 provid es t he p rocedur e for s ea rch and s eiz ur e operat ions in co ns equence of t he infor matio n i n posses sio n of the Inco me T ax A uthor it ies. S ecti on 153 A p res crib es ass essm ent i n cas e of sear ch or r equi sition. Sectio n 15 3A provides that in t he cas e o f a per son wher e a sea rch is i niti ated under S ect ion 132, t he Ass ess ing Off icer s ha ll is sue notice to s uch person requiri ng him to f ur nis h w ithi n such period, as m ay be speci fi ed i n t he noti ce, the ret ur n o f i nco me in respect o f ea ch a sses sment y ea r fal li ng wit hi n six ass ess ment year s (a nd fo r the r elev ant a ssessm ent y ea r or years ) ref er red to i n cl aus e (b), i n the pr es cr i bed for m and v eri fi ed in the pres cri bed m anner a nd setti ng fo rth s uch other part icul ars a s may b e Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 17 pres cri bed and t he provisio ns o f this A ct shall, so f ar as may app ly accordi ngly as i f such r etur n were a r eturn r equi red to be fur nis hed under S ect ion 139 . Section 15 3D o f the Act r el eva nt fo r our purpos es i s to be no ted "Prior app roval necess ary for ass essm ent in cas es of s ear ch o r requisit ion. 153 D.-No o rder o f a sses sment o r reass essment s ha ll b e p as sed by an Assessi ng Of ficer b elow the rank o f Joi nt Commis sioner i n r espect of ea ch ass essm ent year r ef er red to in cla use (b) o f [s ub-secti on (1 ) of ] sect ion 15 3A or t he ass essm ent year ref err ed to in cla use (b ) of sub- sect ion ( 1) o f secti on 1 53B , except w i th the p rior app rov al o f t he Joint Comm iss ioner. Provided that nothing conta ined in thi s sect ion s hal l apply where the ass essm ent or reass essm ent ord er, as t he cas e m ay be, is requir ed to be pa ss ed by t he Assessi ng O ff icer wi th the p rior app rov al o f t he [Princip al Comm iss io ner or ] Co mmis sio ner und er sub-sectio n (1 2) of sect ion 144 BA." The T ribunal w hil e q uas hing the ass ess m ent order had r eli ed upon its ear li er d ecisio n in Navin Jain a nd Ot her s (S upr a) wher ei n a deta il ed discussi on has been made wit h reg ard to the req ui rem ent of prio r approva l of sup er ior authority on t he d raft ass es sment or d er und er Section 15 3D, befor e pa ssi ng the a ss es sment ord er by the Assessi ng Off icer. It wa s not ed that the wo rd 'ap proval ' tho ugh has not been defi ned in t he Inco me Tax Act b ut the gener al m ea ni ng of the wor d 'app roval ' in Bl a ck's Law Dict ionary, 6th Edition was to be s een. The decisio n o f the Ap ex Court in Vij ayad ev Nav al K ishor e B harat ia v s. Land Acq uis ition O f ficer ( 20 03) 5 S CC 83 wherein the distinctio n betw een Appr oving Autho rity and Appel l ate Authority was dr awn, had been noted . The decisi on of the Hig h C ourt of Gauhati i n Dhar amp al Satyap al Ltd. vs. Union of Indi a (2 019 ) 366 ELT 253 ( Ga u.) has been noted to r ecord that grant o f approv al m eans due appli cation of mind on the subj ect m at ter approv ed whi ch sati sfi es al l t he l egal a nd procedural req uir em ents. T here is a n exha ustiv e dis cussio n on t he requir em ent of prio r approval under Section 153 D of the Act and it was not ed that the r equi rement of appro val ca nnot b e treated as mer e form ality and the m a ndate of the A ct that the Approv ing A uthority ha s to a ct i n a judi cio us manner by due appli catio n of mi nd i n a manner o f a qua si jud icial aut hority, has b een co nsi der ed. It w as held ther ein that if an appr ov al has b een g ra nted by the Approvi ng Aut hor ity in a m echa ni cal m anner wit hout appli catio n o f mind then t he v ery purpos e of obt ai ning approva l und er Sect ion 1 53 D of the Act a nd ma ndate of t he enact m ent by the leg isl ature wi ll be def eat ed. F or g ra nti ng app rova l und er Section 1 53 D o f t he Act , th e Approvi ng A utho rity shall hav e t o app ly ind ep end ent mi nd to the materia l on record for " ea ch ass ess ment yea r" i n r esp ect of "eac h Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 18 ass ess ee" s epa rat el y. The words 'ea ch assessm ent year ' used in Section 15 3D a nd 1 53A have b een cons ider ed to ho ld that ef fectiv e and p roper meani ng ha s to be giv en s o that underlyi ng l egisl ativ e intent as p er s cheme o f ass ess ment of S ectio n 1 53A to 15 3D is ful fil led. It wa s held that the "app rova l" as cont emp lat ed under 153 D of the A ct, req uir es the approv ing aut hority, i. e. Joi nt Co m missio ner to verify the issues r ais ed by the A s sess ing Of fi cer i n t he d ra ft ass essm ent order a nd apply hi s mi nd to ascert ain as to whether the requir ed pro cedur e has b een followed b y the Ass ess ing O f fi cer or not in fr am ing the as sessment. The approv al, thus, cannot be a mer e form ality and, in a ny cas e, ca nnot b e a m echa nical exer ci se o f power . It was not ed that the oblig atio ns of the approv al of the A pproving Autho rity s erv es two purpos es: (i ) On the one ha nd, he ha s to apply his m ind to ensure t he i nterest of t he revenue agai nst any commis sio n or neglig ence by t he Ass ess ing O ff icer in taxi ng rig ht inco me i n the hand s of rig ht perso n and i n rig ht ass es sment yea r. (i i) O n the other hand, sup eri or a uthority is als o r esponsible and d uty-bound to do justi ce wit h the t ax-payer by gr anti ng p rotectio n ag ainst a r bitrary or cr eati ng bas el ess t ax liabi lity on t he ass essee. The Tr ibunal ha s f urther not ed that the p rovis ions co nt ained i n Sections 153 A to S ection 153 D p rovid e fo r s epa rat e notice to be giv en to ass ess ee fo r ass essment for ea ch yea r as speci fi ed i n S ection 1 53 A of t he Act; the ass ess ee has to f il e s eparat e ITR for each yea r as specif ied i n Sectio n 153A o f the A ct; separat e ass es sment o rder s ar e to be pas sed for ea ch yea r a s speci fi ed i n Sectio n 1 53A o f the A ct. It was ob served that this i s an i mpo rtant concept ment ioned in Section 153 A of the Act, which is p eculi ar to the scheme o f the sa id Section. Keeping in view o f this b asi c fundam ent al f eat ur es of Sectio n 153A , if S ecti on 15 3 D is scruti niz ed, then, it would beco me manif est that an i mport ant p hra se is employ ed i n the text of Secti on 153 D, whi ch is "ea ch ass essment yea r". The read ing of the prov isions in Section 15 3A a nd 153 D co njoi ntly m akes it cl ear that sepa rat e approva l of d ra ft a s sess ment ord er for ea ch y ea r is to b e obtained under S ecti on 15 3D of the Incom e Tax Act. In its er udit e j udgem ent with t he d iscuss ion on the l egisl ativ e i ntent o f S ect ion 15 3A to 153 D and t he mea ning of t he "app roval" as d ef ined i n Bla ck's L aw Dict ionary as a lso t he decis ions o f the Apex Court in the cas e of Sahar a Indi a vs. CIT and Other s (20 08 ) 300 ITR 403 ( SC ) where the discussi on on the r equir em ent of pr ior a pproval o f Chi ef Com missio ner or Com miss ioner i n term s of pr ovisio n o f Sectio n 1 42( 2A ) of the A ct had been mad e, it was not ed that the Apex Court ha s held ther ei n that the r equir ement of pr evious appr ov al of t he Chi ef Com missio ner or Com miss ioner in term s of t he said provisio n being a n in-built protectio n agai nst arbitr ary o r unj ust exer cis e of pow er by the Assessi ng O ff icer ca sts a very heavy d uty on the s aid hig h r anki ng autho rity to see t hat the app roval env isag ed in the s ect io n is not turned into a n empt y rit ual. The Ap ex C ourt ha s held ther ei n that t he approva l must be gr anted o nly o n the b asis o f mat er ial avai labl e o n Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 19 record and the app r oval m ust refl ect the app li catio n o f m ind to the fa cts of t he case. The abov e discuss i on mad e in the j udgem ent o f Tribunal dat ed 3.08. 202 1 in t he ca se o f Nav in Ja in Vs. Dy. C.I.T. ( Sup ra) has been rel ied by the Tr ibunal, i n the inst ant ca se, to a rriv e at t he concl usio n that the mechani cal approval und er S ection 153 D of the Act wo uld vitiat e the entir e pro ceedi ngs i n the insta nt case. For the r ea soning given i n the ca se of Navi n Ja in ( S upra ), as extra cted i n the im pugned order pa ss ed by the Tribunal, as noted above, t here cannot be a ny two opinion to the r equi rement of pr ior approva l o f t he Jo i nt Co mmi ssio ner to the dr aft as sessm ent ord er prepa red by t he As sess ing O ff icer, as per the m and ate of Sectio n 153 D of t he Incom e Tax Act. The approv al of dra ft a ss essm ent ord er bei ng an in-built p rotectio n agai nst any arbit rar y or unjust ex er cis e of pow er by t he Assessi ng Off icer, ca nnot b e said to be a m echa nical exer ci se, witho ut appli cati on of i ndep end ent mi nd by the Approving A utho rit y on the materia l pla ced befo re it and the r ea soning giv en i n the ass essm ent order . It is adm itted by Sri Gaurav Ma haja n, learned co uns el fo r the appel la nt-rev enue t hat t he app rova l order is a n admi nistr ativ e exer cis e of p ow er o n the p art of the A pproving Aut hor ity but it i s sought to b e subm itted that mere fa ct that the approv al was i n existence on t he dat e of the pas sing o f the a ssessm ent ord er , it coul d not have been v iti at ed. This s ubmi ssio n is fo und to b e a f all acy, in as much as , the p rior a pproval o f sup eri or a uthor ity means that it should appra ise the m ateri al b efo re it so as t o appr eciat e on f actual and lega l asp ect s to as certa in that the entir e mat eri al has b een exami ned by the Ass ess ing A uthor ity bef or e prepari ng the dr aft as sess ment order . It is trit e i n l aw t hat t he app roval must be gra nted only on t h e basis o f mat er ial ava ilabl e on r ecord a nd the app rova l must reflect the appli cati on of mind to the f acts o f the ca se. T he r equir em ent o f approva l und er Section 1 53D is pr e-requisit e to pas s a n order o f ass essm ent o r r e-ass essm ent. Sectio n 153 D r equi res that the Assessi ng O ff icer shall obtai n pr ior appr oval o f t he Jo int Co mmiss ioner in r esp ect o f " ea ch ass essm ent y ea r" r ef err ed to i n C lause (b ) of s ub- sect ion ( 1) of Sectio n 153 A whi ch pr ovid es for ass ess ment in cas e of sea rch und er S ect i on 132. S ect ion 1 53A( 1) (a ) req uir es that the ass ess ee on a not ice iss ued to him by t he A ssessi ng O ff icer would be requir ed to f ur nis h the r eturn of i ncom e i n respect of " ea ch ass essm ent year" f alli ng w ithi n six as sess ment years (a nd for t he rel eva nt as ses sm ent or yea rs) , ref err ed t o in Cl ause (b ) of sub-secti on (1) o f Sectio n 15 3A. The provis o to Sect ion 15 3A f urt her pro vides f or ass essm ent of t he t otal i ncome in resp ect of ea ch ass es s ment year fal ling wit hi n s uch six ass ess ment y ear s (and for t he relev ant ass essm ent y ea r or y ear s). The ca reful and co nj oint reading o f S ecti on 1 53A (1 ) and Sect ion 153 D leav e no room f or doubt that app ro val wit h respect t o "ea ch Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 20 ass essm ent year" is to b e obt ained by the Ass ess ing Of fi cer on th e draft ass essm ent o r der befor e pas sing the as sessm ent ord er under Section 15 3A. In the i nsta nt cas e, the dr aft ass ess ment order in 38 cas es, i. e. fo r 38 ass essm ent y ear s placed befo re t he Approv ing A ut hority on 31.1 2.20 17 w as app r oved on sa me d ay i. e. 31. 12.2 01 7, which not only includ ed the ca ses of respo nd enta ss essee but the cas es of ot her groups as well. It is hum anly imp ossib le to go throug h the r eco rds o f 38 cas es in one da y to apply ind ep end ent to app rais e t he mat eri a l befo re t he Approvi ng Autho rity. The conclusion dra wn by t he Tribuna l that it w as a m echa nical exercise of po wer, ther efo re, cannot be s aid to be perverse or co ntra ry to the m ater ia l on r ecord. As the f a cts ar e ad mitted befor e us , the questions of la w f ram ed on the f act ua l iss ues r elat ed to the fi ndings record ed by the Assessi ng Off icer a re not open to agitate within the scop e of t he pr es ent appeal being in the nature of s econd appeal. No subst ant ial questi on o f l aw aris es for considerat i on befor e us. The App ea l is di smis sed being d evoid o f mer it." 14. Further, we find that similar issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anju Bansal in ITA 368/2023 order dated 13.07.2023 wherein, under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court categorically held that statutory approval given by a quasi judicial authority without due application of mind as contemplated in section 153D of the Act would be fatal to the entire search assessment proceedings. The relevant operative part of the said order is reproduced below:- "12. This a spect w as broug ht to the for e by the Tribunal in the impug ned ord er. T he Tribuna l, thus, co ncl uded t here w as a compl et e lack of app licatio n of mind , i nas much a s the AC IT, w ho gra nted approva l, f ail ed to notice the sa id error. 12.1 Mo re p arti cula r ly, the T ribuna l not es that all t hat w as l ooked at by the A CIT, was t he draft ass ess ment or der. 13. In anot her wo rds, it was empha sised that the app roval wa s grant ed w itho ut exami ning t he as sess ment r eco rd or the s ear ch materia l. The r el ev ant observat ions m ade in this behal f by the Tribunal i n the im pugned o rder ar e ext ra cted hereaft er: "17.1 How ever, i n t he p res ent case, w e hav e no hesitat ion in stating that the re i s c o m pl e te no n-ap pl i c ati o n o f m i nd by the L e arne d Addl . CI T be fo re granti ng the appro val . Had the re be e n appl i c ati o n o f m i nd, he wo ul d no t h ave Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 21 appro ve d the draf t asse s sm e nt o rde r , whe re the re turne d i nc o m e o f R s. 87 ,2 0 , 5 8 0 /-, Si m i l arl y, whe n the total asse sse d i nc o m e as pe r the AO c o m e s to R s. 1 6 , 6 9 ,4 2 , 5 60 /-, the Addl . CIT c o ul d no t have appro ve d the as se sse d i nc o m e at R s. 1 , 6 5 , 0 7 , 5 6 0 /- had he appl i e d hi s m i nd. The addi ti o n o f R s. 1 5 , 0 4 , 3 5 , 0 0 0 /- m ade by t he AO i n the i n st ant c ase i s c o m pl e te l y o ut o f the sc e ne i n the fi nal a sse sse d i nc o m e sho ws vo l u m e s. 17.2 Ev en t he fa ct ual sit uat ion is m uch wors e than t he f a cts decided by the Tribunal in the ca se of S a njay Dugg al (s upr a). In that ca se, at least t he ass ess ment fold ers w er e s ent w her ea s i n the i ns tant c ase , as appe ars fro m the l e tte r o f the Asse s si ng O f fi c e r se e ki ng appro v al , he has se nt o nl y t he draft a sse s sm e nt o rde r wi tho ut any asse s sm e nt re c o rds what to s ay a bo ut the se arc h m a te ri al . A s m e nti o ne d e arl i e r, the re are i nfi rm i ti e s i n the fi gure s o f o ri gi nal re turn o f i nc o m e as we l l as to tal a sse s se d and the Addl . CI T whi l e gi vi ng h i s appro val h as no t appl i e d hi s m i nd to the fi gure s m e nti o ne d by the AO . The re fo re , appro val gi ve n i n the i nsta nt c ase by the Addl . CIT, i n o ur o pi ni o n, i s no t val i d i n the e ye s o f l aw. W e , the re fo re , ho l d t hat appro val gi ve n u/s 1 5 3 D has be e n grante d i n a m e c hani c al m anner and wi tho ut app l i c ati o n o f m i nd and thus i t i s i nval i d and bad i n l aw and cons equent ly vitia ted the a ssessm ent o rder for w ant o f val id a pproval u/s 1 53 D of the Act. In v iew of the ab ov e dis cussio n, we hol d that t he ord er p as sed u/s 15 3A r.w.s . 4 3(3 ) has to b e q uas hed, thus o rder ed accordi ngly. The gr ound r ais ed by the Assessee is a ccordi ngly allo wed". [Empha sis i s ours] 14. In this appeal , w e a re r equir ed to exami ne w het her a ny substa nti al questi on of la w a ris es f or our cons iderati on. 15. Hav ing r ega rd to the fi ndi ngs r etur ned by the Tribuna l, w hich ar e find ings o f f act, in o ur vi ew, no subst ant ial questi on o f la w a rises fo r our co nsid er ation. T he Trib una l was rig ht that t here w as a bsence o f appli cati on of mi nd by the ACIT in gr a nting app roval under Sectio n 153 D. It is not an exer cis e deali ng wit h a imm ateria l matt er which could b e cor rected b y taking recourse t o Section 29 2B o f the Act. 16. We ar e not incli ned to int erd ict t he o r der o f the Trib una l." 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 ld. JCIT in the instant case Mysore Finlease Pvt Ltd 8821/del/2019 Page | 22 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. 16. Since, pursuant to the allowing of the additional grounds, the entire search assessment framed in the hands of all the assessees is to be declared illegal and bad in law, the other legal grounds and grounds on merits raised by the assessees for various assessment years need not be gone into as adjudication of the same would be merely academic in nature and, hence, they are left open. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 8788/Del/2019 in the case of Brij Kishore for Asst Year 2010-11 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/01/2024. -Sd/- -Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10/01/2024 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi