M/S. K L SHARMA & SUNITA MAHESHWARI, Bhopal V. DCIT Central 1(1), Bhopal

ITSSA 120/Ind/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. K L Sharma & Sunita Maheshwari, a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had initially allowed the deduction in scrutiny assessments but later disallowed it under section 154, citing a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal found that the issue was debatable and required detailed examination, which was beyond the scope of section 154. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the lack of necessary approval under section 153D for the amendment made by the Assessing Officer, leading to the quashing of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130446 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2021
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros, Nirmala Udyog vs. CIT, Sagar Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, Bata India Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Rectification of order; Search and seizure; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Block assessment; Change of opinion
• Section: 263; 132; 271(1)(c); 154; 143(3); 153A; 80IB; 139(1); 13

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 13 आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year:2012-13) M/s. K L Sharma & Sunita Maheshwari 177, C-Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal Vs. DCIT, 1(1) Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAEFK 2938 D Assessee by Shri Arpit Gaur, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 09.07.2021 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3 arising from order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 801B(10) of Rs. 56,36,908/- without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without considering the fact that such disallowances cannot be made by issuing notice u/s 154 which is unjust, unfair and deserves to be deleted. IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 2 of 13 Page 2 of 13 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the action of the AO for invocation of provisions of section 154 for making disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801B(10) without accepting the explanation offered by the assessee and without considering the fact that the deduction u/s 801B(10) has been allowed in assessment twice once in order u/s 143(3) and other in order u/s 153A rws 143(3). The learned CIT(A) further erred in not even giving any reason for the objections raised that such disallowances cannot be made u/s 154 of the Act. Thus, the order passed is unjust, unfair and bad in law. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, charging of interest u/s 234A, u/s 2348 and u/s 220(2) is not justified. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.” 2. The assesse is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builder and developers. The assesse filed it’s return of income u/s 139(1) on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.16,61,070/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.56,36,908/-. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 27.03.2015 whereby the assessing officer assessed the total income of the assesse at returned income. Thereafter, there was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 12.08.2014 in the case of the assesse and associated concern of Regal Homes Group. The AO completed the assessment u/s 153A for assessment years 2009- 10 to 2014-15 and u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2015-16 vide consolidated assessment order dated 21.12.2016. Thereafter the AO issued a notice u/s 154 on 05.03.2020 and proposed to amend the assessment order on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 154/155 of the Act in respect of the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. The assesse objected to the proposed rectification u/s 154 by filing the reply dated 18.03.2020 wherein the assesse has raised objection of jurisdiction of the AO to take up the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10). The AO did not accept the said reply/objections filed by the assesse and passed the impugned order u/s 154 on 19.03.2020 whereby the AO has disallowed IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 3 of 13 Page 3 of 13 the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and enhanced income of the assesse for A.Y.2012-13 by Rs.56,36,908/-. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal the Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to reassess the income of the assesse on the ground that income has escaped assessment on account of non-disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Under section 154 of the Act what can be rectified is mistake apparent from record whereas if the assessing officer has reason to belief that income chargeable to tax as escaped assessment the provisions of section 154 cannot be invoked. He has further contended that a mistake which can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act is one which is patent/obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. Further mistake apparent from record does not cover any mistake whose discovery is depended on complicated process of investigation, argument, and proof. Therefore, the AO has no jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 154 on the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) which is a debatable issue. He has referred to show cause notice issued by the AO and submitted that the AO has issued the notice on the ground of escaped assessment of Rs.56,36,908/- claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for A.Y.2012-13. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB was allowed by the AO while passing original assessment u/s 143(3) and thereafter while passing the assessment order u/s 153A therefore, proposed rectification of mistake is nothing but change of opinion of the AO on the allowability of deduction u/s 80IB. Once the claim was allowed in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the same cannot be disallowed in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration which is unabated assessment. The AO has no jurisdictional to review its assessment order and therefore, is not permitted to reassess the income of the assesse in the garb of rectification of mistake. Thus he has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld DCIT erred in invoking section 154 to rectify assessment order passed U/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 4 of 13 Page 4 of 13 Tax Act, 1961 dated 21-12-2016 as the issue of disallowance of claim u/s 801B was already considered and examined by AO during Block assessment and also accepted by AO during assessment proceeding u/s 143(3). 4. He has referred to the order passed under section 154 and submitted that a perusal of assessment order dt. 21-12-2016 does not reveal any mistake apparent from record and power under section. 154 of the Act is a limited power to correct only those mistakes which are apparent on record. It is not a power of revision or review and is well settled that the power of rectification is not the same as review power. Under such powers of section 154, the AO can rectify errors apparent on record but detailed consideration is not permissible for invoking section 154. Consequently, unless the AO has tangible material before him on the basis of which he comes to that conclusion, the reopening of an assessment cannot be permitted merely on the ground that there is a change in the view of the AO and he subsequently believes that the earlier view was incorrect. Thus, rectification done by Ld. DCIT is not due to mistake apparent from record but it is due to change in opinion and it is well settled that power of section 154 does not cover the change in opinion. Ld. DCIT has not rectified mistake apparent from record what the authority has done is that it has reviewed its original order and reappreciated the entire material on record and has come to a different conclusion than the conclusion which it had arrived at in the original block assessment order. Therefore, it is not a case of rectifying the error apparent from the record; it is only a case of reframing of the assessment giving reasons. Thus, Rectification order is totally against provision of section 154, being unfair and bad in the eye of law and needs to be quashed/deleted. 5. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgments: 1.T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros 82 ITR 50 (SC) IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 5 of 13 Page 5 of 13 2. Nirmala Udyog vs. CIT 232 ITR 493 (MP) 3. Sagar Co-operative Central Bank Ld. Vs. CIT 186 ITR 292 (MP) 4. Bata India Ltd. vs. ACIT 249 ITR 491 (Cal) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB (10) as this issue has been decided for A.Y.2009-10 by this Tribunal against the assessee and therefore, not making a disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB while framing the assessment u/s 153A particularly for the year under consideration is apparent mistake from record when the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was disallowed by the AO for all other assessment falling in the block period of six years. He has further submitted that facts for the year under consideration are identical to the fact of the preceding year wherein the deduction u/s 80IB(10) has been disallowed by the AO. In the show cause notice the AO has specifically mentioned in the foot note that mistake has crept in the assessment order and therefore, there is no error in the show cause notice issued by the AO. He has relied upon the order of the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). 7. In rejoinder Ld. AR has submitted that this is a debatable issue as the appeal for A.Y.2009-10 arising from the scrutiny assessment is pending before Hon’ble High Court. Further the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of scope of section 154 of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that in the scrutiny assessment passed u/s 143(3) on 27.03.2015 the AO allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10). Thereafter in the assessment order passed u/s 153A on 21.12.2016 the AO has framed the consolidated assessment for A.Y.2009- 10 to 2014-15 and u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2015-16. The assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee for other assessment years while passing the order u/s 153A except for the year under consideration. Therefore, the AO even did not take up the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the year under consideration while passing the assessment IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 6 of 13 Page 6 of 13 order u/s 153A of the Act. The relevant part of the assessment order in para 13 to 13.1 is as under: “13.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee firm was engaged in development and construction of several housing projects. It has claimed deduction u/s 801B(10) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of its projects. The year wise claim of deduction u/s 801B(10) is as under: Sr. No. Assessment Year Dedution claimed u/s 80IB of the Act 1 2009-10 Rs. 19,87,436/- 2 2010-11 Rs. 65,83,844/- 3 2011-12 Rs. 1,97,29,345/- 13.1 The claim of deduction u/s 801B(10) of the IT Act, 1961 was disallowed by the Assessing officer and added to the total income of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11. Disallowance of claim of deduction u's 301B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was confirmed for the A.Y. 2009-10 by the CIT(A)-I, Bhopal in the Appeal No CIT(A)-1/BPL/IT. No. 247/2011-12 vide order dated 11.02.2014 and subsequently confirmed by the ITAT, Indore Bench's order dated 15.03.2016 in ITA No. 213/Ind/2015. Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was confirmed for the A.Y. 2010-11 by the CIT(A)-II, Bhopal vide order dated 11.10.2013 and subsequently confirmed by the ITAT, Indore Bench's order dated 04.07.2016 in IT(SS)A No. 728/Ind/2013.” 9. As manifest from the assessment order passed u/s 153A the AO taken up the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) only for A.Ys.2009- 10 to 2011-12 and the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(1) for the assessment year under consideration was not even questioned by the AO in the assessment proceeding u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, it is a clear case of non-consideration, non-examination and non-adjudication of the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the year under consideration. In the show cause notice the AO has proposed to rectify the mistake and enhance the assessment as under: IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 7 of 13 Page 7 of 13 10. Thus in the body of the show cause notice the AO has not even mentioned which apparent mistake crept in the assessment order which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act and only at the bottom of the show IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 8 of 13 Page 8 of 13 cause notice the AO has mentioned the nature of mistake proposed to be rectified as “escaped assessment of Rs.56,36,908/- claimed u/s 80IB of the Act by the assessee for a.Y.2012-13”. The reason for rectification of mistake is escapement of assessment and that too because of non-taken up of the issue, non-examination and adjudication of the same for the year under consideration. It emerged from the record that the mistake which was proposed to be rectified by the AO u/s 154 of the Act was in fact in the nature of the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if at all and appropriate remedy for the same is u/s 263 of the Act. The assessing officer instead of taking a timely action for sending proposal for revision u/s 263 has resorted to the provision of section 154 of the Act. It is apparent that since the time limit for passing the order u/s 263 was already expired and therefore, the assessing officer has resorted to the provision of section 154 of the Act. What the AO proposed to do and finally done in the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act is adjudication of the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) which is in our considered opinion is beyond the scope of provision of section 154 of the Act. The scope and ambit of proceedings of rectification of order u/s 154 and proceedings for revision order are different and distinct. The order of rectification can be pass on certain contingency and it does not confer a power of review. Rectification u/s 154 can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed and becomes apparent from record. Therefore, the rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act can be made only when there is a mistake apparent on the face of record and the same must be obvious and patent mistake. The scope of section 154 is very limited and circumscribed and does not encompass any investigation , verification and evaluation of facts and record. Thus, it is clear that u/s 154 of the Act the AO cannot take a decision on issue which is debatable issue and requires verification of facts and law. Thus, the decision on debatable point of law and fact is not a mistake apparent from record. It is apparent from record that the AO did not adjudicate the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the year under consideration while passing the assessment year under section 153A of the Act and therefore, this issue IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 9 of 13 Page 9 of 13 was to be adjudicated for the year under consideration in the proceedings u/s 154 and the AO has to take a decision on this issue. Though the AO has followed his decision for the other assessment years as well as decision of this tribunal in assessee’s own case however, since it is a mix question of fact and law therefore, the adjudication of the said issue requires evaluation/analysis of the facts and verification of record. It is also undisputed fact that this issue is highly contested between the parties and was taken up to this tribunal in the preceding assessment year and still pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The scope of proceedings u/s 154 of the Act are limited to the rectification of mistake apparent from record and cannot be expended to adjudicate an issue not adjudicated in the assessment order. Further once the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and it was not pending as on the date of search, therefore, the assessment under consideration was not abated by virtue of search and consequently it is highly debatable issue as to whether the AO can make any addition on an issue which was already subject matter of the scrutiny assessment. All these issues would have been arises had the AO made this disallowance in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, this issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IB is a highly debatable issue and cannot be adjudicated u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act adjudicating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB (10) is beyond the scope of rectification of mistake apparent from record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T. S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (supra) has considered the scope of rectification of mistake u/s 154 as under: “From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S. 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not ,something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 10 of 13 Page 10 of 13 As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale(1) this Court while Spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record-see Sidhamappa v.. Commissioner- of Income-tax, Bombay(2). The power of the officers mentioned in S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890.(2) 21 I.T.R. 333. undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record". In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions 66 error apparent on the face of the record" and "mistake apparent from the record". But suffice it to say that the Income tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent.” 11. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not ,something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. In case of Nirmala Udyog vs. CIT(supra) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has considered this issue in para 23 to 25 as under: “23. From a long catena of cases, which have been cited by the respective parties, it is now too well settled that any question which can be said to be debatable would not fall in the category of mistake apparent from the record. 24. In view of the fact that this legal position is no more in dispute, it is not necessary for me to deal with each and every authority individually, cited by the respective parties. 25. In fact, the question involved in this petition has been answered recently by the apex court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., [1997] 228 ITR 463. The Supreme Court has held, that for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act, for exercising power of rectification of mistake, it is a condition precedent that the mistake must be glaring and obvious. If the question is debatable, then, it cannot be said to be a proper exercise by the authorities concerned.” IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 11 of 13 Page 11 of 13 12. Similar in case of Sagar Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has reiterated its view in para 9 & 10 as under: “9. It is well settled that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). Although the Supreme Court was dealing with a case under s. 154 of the Act, the term which fell for consideration was the same, namely, 'mistake apparent from the record'. 10. It is worthwhile repeating that, as in the earlier years, the Tribunal, without reference to any of its decisions of the previous years, had come to the same conclusion in respect of the exemption of the asst. yr. 1974-75 with regard to the scope of s. 80P(2)(a)(i). Merely because the High Court took a view contrary to that of the Tribunal with regard to an earlier year after the appellate order in respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75, it could not be said that there was any error apparent from the record in the appellate order of the Tribunal for the year in question. Only more so, because the decision of this Court was already the subject-matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court may as well take a view different from that taken by this Court and may reverse the decision of this Court. In any event, it cannot be said that the mistake is an obvious and a patent mistake, because for various assessment years preceding the year in question, the Tribunal had taken a contrary view. The same view had been taken with regard to this year also. The view subsequently taken by the High Court in respect of an earlier assessment year could not be said to have made the point incapable of two opinions. In any event, so long as the matter pending consideration before the Supreme Court is not settled, it cannot be said that there is no debatable point of law involved. The mistake, if any, in the Tribunal's appellate order is something which could be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on the point of exemption under s. 80P(2)(a)(i).” 13. In view of the scope of section 154 as defined in the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court as well as Hon’ble High Court, the impugned order passed by the AO deciding the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) is beyond the scope and jurisdiction u/s 154 of IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 12 of 13 Page 12 of 13 the Act and accordingly the same is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 14. There is another aspect in the matter regarding mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act. The assessee officer who is below the rank of JCIT cannot pass assessment order u/s 153A without prior approval from the JCIT as mandated u/s 153D of the Act. The order passed u/s 154 in the case of the assessee is not a mere rectification of mistake but the Assessing officer has adjudicated the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby enhanced the income of the assessee by a sum of Rs.56,36,908/-. Therefore, the amendment in the assessment order passed u/s 153A is also required an approval u/s 153D of the Act otherwise it would amount to defeat and circumvent the very purpose for which the provisions of section 153D has been brought in statute. 15. The object of inserting the section 153Dn was to ensure an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the AO. Therefore, the AO who is below the rank of Joint commissioner cannot pass an order u/s 153A without prior sanction or approval of the Joint Commissioner to the draft assessment order. There is no dispute that this requirement of approval of Joint Commissioner is mandatory pre-requisite jurisdictional conditions and in the absence of the same the order would be nullity. Once the order u/s 153A cannot be passed without sanction u/s 153D then after taking the sanction and order is passed by the AO the same cannot be amended or altered by the AO itself as it would defeat very purpose of bringing this provision in the statute as an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the AO. In other words if AO is allowed to change or amend the order which was passed with prior approval/sanction of the Joint Commissioner then it would amount to circumvent the provisions of section 153D of the Act. What the AO can’t do directly is also allowed to do indirectly in the garb of rectification of mistake in the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act resulting substantial enhancement of the income of the assessee is nothing but an IT(SS)A No.120/Ind/2021 K.L. Sharma and Sunita Maheshwari Page 13 of 13 Page 13 of 13 amendment of the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act and hence, all pre-requisite mandatory requirements u/s 153D of the Act as applicable for the assessment order passed u/s 153A would also be applicable for passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. Thus in absence of the approval u/s 153D of the Act any amendment or enhancement of the assessment made by the AO while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act is not valid. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act is beyond the scope of the proceedings u/s 154 and also invalid for want of mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act and consequently the same is quashed. 16. In the result, appeal of assesse is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore, 16.08.2023 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore