Prakash Assudani, Bhopal V. DCIT (Central)-1, Bhopal

ITSSA 279/Ind/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals by Prakash Assudani against the consolidated assessment orders for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18, which were passed following a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessments were made under sections 153A and 143(3) of the Act. The primary contention of the assessee was the invalidity of the approval under section 153D, which was necessary for the assessments to be legally tenable. The Tribunal examined the procedural compliance in granting this approval and found significant lapses, leading to the quashing of the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130644 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib), Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib), Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib), Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (Del HC), Pradeep Kumar Sharma (2021) (Del-Trib), National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), National Newsprints Vs. CIT 223 ITR 688 (MP), M/s Shri Gurumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Indore-Trib), Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (SC), Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC), Navin Jain & Ors. Vs. DCIT (Luck.-Trib.), M/s All Cargo Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT (Special Bench), Rajat Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Ranchi-Trib.), Indra Bansal (Jodhpur Bench), Goyal Energy & Steel (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Amritsar-Trib.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Opportunity of cross examination; Period of limitation; Third party statement; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Documents seized; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 68; 132; 154; 143(3); 153A; 143(2); 139(1); 142(2A); 13; 22; 153C

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 31 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर ायपीठ, 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.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18 Prakash Assudani CRP A 18/4, Old Bairagarh, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. DCIT (Central)-1 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AEFPA 8202 H Assessee by Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA & Ld. AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT & Ld. DR Date of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 25.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 05.11.2019 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 30.12.2018 passed by learned DCIT, Central-I, Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 153A/ 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011- 12 to 2017-18, the assessee has filed this bunch of seven appeals. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 31 3. Briefly stated the facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee-individual was CEO of Mahanagar Sahkari Bank Maryadit, Bairagarh Bhopal. A search u/s 132 of the act was carried upon one “Vaswani Group” of Bhopal as well as assessee from 20.12.2016 to 23.12.2016, pursuant to which the case of assessee was centralized in the jurisdiction of Ld. AO alongwith all other cases of the group. Thereafter, assessments of past six years from AY 2011-12 to 2016-17 were made u/s 153A read with section 143(3) and the assessment of search-year being AY 2017-18 was made u/s 143(3); all were done vide a consolidated assessment-order dated 30.12.2018 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities. 4. Originally the assessee has raised various grounds in the Appeal- Memo (Form No. 36) of respective years placed on record; the same are not re-produced for the sake of brevity. Thereafter, the assessee also filed “Additional Grounds”, acknowledged by the office of ITAT through Inward Entry No. 1812 to 1818 dated 28.02.2023. These “Additional Grounds” are as under: IT(SS)A No. 279/Ind/2019 – AY 2011-12: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A; as there is no initiation and conclusion of search u/s 132 on the assessee-individual; as ‘no panchnama’ has been drawn on the assessee-individual, which is sine qua non & pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 153A(1)(a); in absence of this which is sine qua non for making assessment u/s 153A, assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib); Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib); Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 3 of 31 valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” IT(SS)A No. 280/Ind/2019 – AY 2012-13: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A; as there is no initiation and conclusion of search u/s 132 on the assessee-individual; as ‘no panchnama’ has been drawn on the assessee-individual, which is sine qua non & pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 153A(1)(a); in absence of this which is sine qua non for making assessment u/s 153A, assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib); Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib); Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A only on the basis of third party statement recorded u/s 132(4) during search conducted on the alleged third party (i.e. Lokesh Vaswani & Sushil Vaswani); permissible course of action ought to have been intimated u/s 153C and not u/s 153A; assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed, relied on Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (Del HC); Pradeep Kumar Sharma (2021) (Del-Trib). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” IT(SS)A No. 281/Ind/2019 – AY 2013-14: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A; as there is no initiation and conclusion of search u/s 132 on the assessee-individual; as ‘no panchnama’ has been drawn on the assessee-individual, which is sine qua non & pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 153A(1)(a); in absence of this which is sine qua non for making assessment u/s 153A, assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib); Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib); Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 4 of 31 valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” IT(SS)A No. 282/Ind/2019 – AY 2014-15: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A; as there is no initiation and conclusion of search u/s 132 on the assessee-individual; as ‘no panchnama’ has been drawn on the assessee-individual, which is sine qua non & pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 153A(1)(a); in absence of this which is sine qua non for making assessment u/s 153A, assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib); Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib); Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A only on the basis of third party statement recorded u/s 132(4) during search conducted on the alleged third party (i.e. Lokesh Vaswani & Sushil Vaswani); permissible course of action ought to have been intimated u/s 153C and not u/s 153A; assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed, relied on Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (Del HC); Pradeep Kumar Sharma (2021) (Del-Trib). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” IT(SS)A No. 283/Ind/2019 – AY 2015-16: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A; as there is no initiation and conclusion of search u/s 132 on the assessee-individual; as ‘no panchnama’ has been drawn on the assessee-individual, which is sine qua non & pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 153A(1)(a); in absence of this which is sine qua non for making assessment u/s 153A, assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib); Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib); Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A only on the basis of third party statement recorded u/s 132(4) during search conducted on the alleged third party (i.e. Lokesh Vaswani & Sushil Vaswani); permissible course of action ought to have been intimated u/s 153C Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 5 of 31 and not u/s 153A; assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed, relied on Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (Del HC); Pradeep Kumar Sharma (2021) (Del-Trib). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” IT(SS)A No. 284/Ind/2019 – AY 2016-17: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A; as there is no initiation and conclusion of search u/s 132 on the assessee-individual; as ‘no panchnama’ has been drawn on the assessee-individual, which is sine qua non & pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction u/s 153A(1)(a); in absence of this which is sine qua non for making assessment u/s 153A, assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Regency Mahavir Properties (2018) (Mum-Trib); Unique Star Developers (2017) (Mum-Trib); Dr Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah (2012) (Ahd-Trib). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A only on the basis of third party statement recorded u/s 132(4) during search conducted on the alleged third party (i.e. Lokesh Vaswani & Sushil Vaswani); permissible course of action ought to have been intimated u/s 153C and not u/s 153A; assessment made u/s 153A would be invalid and is liable to be quashed, relied on Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (2021) (Del HC); Pradeep Kumar Sharma (2021) (Del-Trib). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” IT(SS)A No. 285/Ind/2019 – AY 2017-18: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 6 of 31 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR pleaded one of the Additional Grounds which is common in all years i.e. Ground No. 2 of AY 2011-12, No. 3 of AY 2012-13, No. 2 of AY 2013-14, No. 3 of AY 2014-15, No. 3 of AY 2015-16, No. 3 of AY 2016-17 and No. 1 of AY 2017-18. This common ground reads as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making assessment u/s 153A, as approval granted u/s 153D dated 29.12.18 by Addl. CIT is invalid as approval granted u/s 153D by Addl. CIT is without application of mind, in a mechanical & hasty manner, merely a formality, an empty ritual; in absence of valid approval as mandated by law u/s 153D, assessment made u/s 153A would be treated as invalid, and is liable to be quashed.” Ld. AR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) and National Newsprints Vs. CIT 223 ITR 688 (MP) and submitted that the impugned ground is purely legal in nature, goes to the root of matter and can be adjudicated on the basis of facts already available on record; hence the same deserves to be admitted. Ld. DR could not show any objection. We, therefore, admitted the same and thereupon both sides made submissions. 6. Since the impugned ground raises a legal issue which goes to the root of matter and calls into question the maintainability of assessment-order itself; we firstly adjudicate this ground. The assessee’s claim in this ground is such that the approval u/s 153D dated 29.12.2018 granted by Addl. CIT is without application of mind; in a mechanical & hasty manner; merely a formality; an empty ritual and therefore in absence of a valid approval u/s 153D, the consequential assessments made u/s 153A are also rendered invalid and liable to be quashed. 7. Apropos to this ground, Ld. AR submitted that pursuant to the search u/s 132 conduced upon assessee, the assessments were framed u/s 153A for six years from AY 2011-12 to 2016-17 and u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18 vide a consolidated assessment-order dated 30.12.2018. Prior to that, Ld. AO sent a proposal to Addl. CIT, Central, Bhopal on 28.12.2018 to obtain Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 7 of 31 approval as required u/s 153D of the Act, copy of the proposal-letter is filed at Page No. 2 of the Paper-Book. The draft assessment-order was also enclosed with the same for approval of Addl. CIT. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT, Central, Bhopal, granted approval on the very next day i.e. 29.12.2018 u/s 153D, copy of the approval is filed at Page No. 1 of the Paper-Book. Ld. AR attacks the approval granted by Addl. CIT on two counts, namely (i) Addl. CIT has not recorded any satisfaction in the approval-order, and (ii) the same is a product of non-application of mind; approval has been given in a mechanical manner without due diligence. According to Ld. AR, the impugned approval is nothing but an empty formality and thus not a valid approval as mandated u/s 153D of the Act. 8. Then, the Ld. AR straightaway submitted that in the case of M/s Shri Gumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd., another person/assessee who was one of the entities subjected to same search/assessment proceeding as well as part of the same proposal-letter dated 28.12.2018 by the same AO and approval dated 29.12.2018 by the same Addl. CIT, the ITAT Indore Bench has already decided this very issue in ITA No. 70 to 76/Ind/2020, DCIT Vs. M/s Shri Gurumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd. order dated 14.12.2022 and categorically held that there was no application of mind by Ld. Addl. CIT who has carried out exercise in utmost haste; in mechanical manner; not in terms of the mandate prescribed u/s 153D of the Act. Therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the entire proceeding. For the sake of immediate reference, the said order of Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced below: “4.3 The proposal for obtaining approval of the draft order under Section 153D of the Act issued on 28.12.2018 by the DCIT has been perused by us and same is appearing at page 10 of the paper book filed before us, the contents whereof is as follows: “F.No. DCIT-I/Central/BPL/1S3D/2018-19/3031 Date : 28/12/2018 To, The Addl. CIT (Central), Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 8 of 31 Bhopal Sir, Sub:- Approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the case of Vaswani Group - regarding- Kindly find enclosed herewith the draft assessment order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of following assessee for your kind perusal and approval u/s 153D of the IT Act, 1961. A composite order for seven years is being passed in these cases. Due care has been taken to ensure that:- 1. Proper opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee on all the issues. 2. All the issues emanating from the material available on record have been examined properly and are incorporated in the draft orders. 3. Relevant seized documents were verified before passing the draft orders and are kept in safe custody. S.NO. Name of the Assessee PAN A. Yrs. 1 Prakash Assudani AEFPA8202H 2011-12 to 2017-18 2 Lokesh Vaswani ADRPV6829J 2011-12 to 2017-18 3 Shri Gurumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd. AAHCS4756R 2011-12 to 2017-18 4 Suresh Vaswani AAKPV6009J 2011-12 to 2017-18 5 Sushil Vaswani AAKPV5987D 2011-12 to 2017-1 8 It is requested that approval may kindly be accorded.” 4.4 In turn, on the very next day i.e. 29.12.2018, the Addl. CIT, Central, Bhopal granted approval under Section 153D of the Act appearing at page No.9 of the Paper Book filed before us; the contents whereof is as follows: “F. No. Addl. CIT (C)/BPL/153D/2018-19/1290 Date: 29.12.2018 To The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Bhopal Sub:- Approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of - Vaswani Group - reg- Please refer to your office letters in F.No. DCIT-I/Central/BPL/153D/2018- 19/3031 dated 28.12.2018 seeking approval u/s 153D of the IT Act, 1961. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 9 of 31 2. The AO has certified that: • Proper opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee on all the issues. • All the issues emanating from the material available on record have been examined properly and are incorporated in the draft orders. • Relevant seized documents were verified before passing the draft orders and are kept in safe custody. 3. Subject to the above observations, the draft assessment orders are hereby approved, as required under the provisions of section 153D of the Income Tax Act in the following cases; S. No. Assessee PAN Draft order u/s A.Ys. 1 Prakash Assudani AEFPA8202H 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 2 Lokesh Vaswani ADRPV6829J 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 3 Shri Gurumukhdas Constractors Pvt. Ltd. AAHCS4756R 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 4 Suresh Vaswani AAKPV6009J 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 5 Sushil Vaswani AAKPV5987D 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 4. It should be ensured that the final assessment orders are passed and served on the assessees well in time. A copy of the final assessment orders should be submitted to this office for record.” 4.5 From a bare reading of the approval granted by the Ld. Addl. CIT, Central, Bhopal, dated 29.12.2018, it appears that Ld. AO has certified before the said authority while sending the draft assessment order that; (i) proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee on all the issues; (ii) These issues emanating from the materials available on record have been duly examined and were incorporated in the draft orders; & (iii) Further that, relevant seized documents were verified before passing the draft orders and are kept in safe custody. It was further mentioned in the said approval dated 29.12.2018 that subject to the above observation, the draft assessment order had been approved in terms of the provisions laid down under Section 153D of the Act. It was further mentioned that the final assessment orders are to be passed and served upon the assessee well in time. 5. We, therefore, do not find any recording of satisfaction of the Ld. Addl. CIT in the impugned approval order as to whether the assessment records/ assessment folders/files/seized materials or any incriminating documents or other connected documents and papers/various statements recorded under Section 132(4) and Section 131(1A) of the Act of the assessee or any other Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 10 of 31 person/appraisal report of the Investigation Wing of the Department/ materials on hand with the Department at the time of initiation of search or material evidences gathered were placed for its verification and the same were duly verified and/or examined by him as mandated under Section 153D of the Act. In the absence of compliance of the above mandate, the approval order dated 29.12.2018 passed under Section 153D of the Act becomes an empty formality without due process of law and, thus, not sustainable. The learned Addl. CIT, in fact, abdicated his statutory functions and delightfully relegated the statutory duty to his subordinate being the DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal adopting a shortcut method. Merely, an undertaking given by the Ld. AO was considered to be adequate for the Addl. CIT to accord approval in all assessments involved without considering any merit in proposed adjustment with reference to appraisal report, incriminating material collected in search etc.; this is nothing but an approval by way of mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft order without any independent application of mind by the said Addl. CIT. It is clearly evident that the Addl. CIT has not verified and/or examined the relevant materials on record as already discussed by us hereinabove. The power to grant approval as mandated under Section 153D of the Act is not to be exercised casually or any routine manner rather the concerned authorities expected to grant approval upon examination of the entire materials before approving the draft order and the authority is legally required to apply due application of mind. 5.1 On this aspect, we have considered followings judgments relied upon by the Ld. AR: 5.1.1 In case of Navin Jain & Ors. Vs. DCIT, reported in [2021] 91 ITR 682 (Luck.-Trib.): The said Bench on identical issue has been pleased to observe as follows: “7. It was submitted that the rationale of word ‘each’ as specifically referred to in s.153D and s.153A deserves to be given effective/proper meaning so that the underlying legislative intent as per the scheme of assessment of ss.153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was submitted that Addl. CIT in these cases has granted approval for all the assesses for all assessment years through a single approval letter which is against the intent of law and therefore, also the approval given by Addl. CIT is non-est and consequential assessment made on this basis of such approval is illegal and deserves to be annulled. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohd. Ayub vs. ITO 346 ITR 30 where non issue of separate notice under s.148 for each year were held to be invalid. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that granting of approval under s.153D is a huge task which involves the verification by the approving authority to examine as to which year is unabated and which year is abated and the relevance vis-à-vis seized material. Learned counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to CBDT manual of Office Procedure Volume-II (Technical) placed at pp. 995 and 996 of paper book wherein the CBDT has directed that AO should submit the draft assessment order for approval from the approving authority to examine as to which year is unabated and which year is abated and the relevance vis-à-vis seized Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 11 of 31 material. Learned counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to CBDT manual of Office Procedure Volume-II (Technical) placed at pages 995 and 996 of paper book wherein the CBDT has directed that Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for approval from the approving authority well in time. Such manual says that the Assessing Officer should seek approval from the approving authority at least one month before the time barring date. While going through CBDT manual placed at paper book pages 995 & 996, it was observed that this manual was printed in February 2003 and therefore, Learned counsel for the assessee was asked as to how it is applicable to the provisions of section 153D of the Act which came into existence w.e.f. 01/06/2007. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect submitted that this manual is applicable to the provisions of section 158BG of the Act and which are para materia to the provisions of section 153D of the Act. It was further submitted that Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Shreelekha Damani, vide order dated 19/08/2015, while deciding similar issue u/s 153D, has relied on the case laws relied for deciding the issue of approval u/s 158BG of the Act and therefore this manual is applicable to provisions of Section 153D also. Learned counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12/03/2008 issued by CBDT whereby the CBDT has issued instructions regarding mandatory approval u/s 153D if the order is to be passed by Assessing Officer below the rank of Jt. CIT. It was submitted that the present cases were becoming time barring on 31/12/2018 and draft assessment orders has been made on 30/12/2018 and approval has been taken on 30/12/2018 and on the same day final assessment order has been passed and, therefore, clearly the CBDT instructions have been violated. In view of these facts and circumstances, it was submitted that approval has been given in a most mechanical manner without any application of mind and without any independent examination of seized material and other material on record. There is no mention about any incriminating material forwarded to Jt. CIT and there is no mention of the statements recorded at the time of search. It was submitted that the approval is granted in a hurried manner without looking into the serious lapses committed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the approval u/s 153D is invalid and bad in law and consequent assessment order needs to be quashed and reliance in this respect was placed on the order of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal and Others vs. ACIT in I.T.A. No.1813/Del/2019 wherein vide order dated 19/01/2021 the entire law relating to section 153D has been discussed and after relying on a number of case laws, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the assessees and has quashed the assessment order. It was submitted that in that case also, through a single letter, the approval was granted in a number of cases. Further reliance was placed on the order of Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajat Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT wherein sanction u/s 153D was granted in 28 cases and Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees by quashing the assessment orders. Further reliance was placed on the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shreelekha Damani wherein the provisions of section 158BG has been discussed and it was held by the Tribunal that approval granted u/s. 153D of the Act was de void of application of mind and without considering the material on record and hence Tribunal annulled the assessment. It was submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also dismissed the appeal of the Department filed against the above order Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 12 of 31 of the Tribunal. Further reliance was placed on an order of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.4916 in the case of Sumer Associates wherein under similar circumstances, vide order dated 26/12/2018 the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Indra Bansal decided by Jodhpur Bench in I.T.A. No.321 to 324 vide order dated 23/02/2018. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Cuttack Bench of Tribunal in I.T.A. No.01 and 02 in the case of Geeta Rani Poddar and Manju Simite Dash where vide order dated 05/07/2018 similar issue has been decided in favour of assessee. 7.1 In view of these facts and circumstances and judicial precedents, it was argued that the assessment orders passed in these cases are illegal and need to be quashed. 8. Learned CIT-D.R., on the other hand argued that proper approval, as required under the provisions of section 153D, has been obtained by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the approval was taken well within the time before limitation and the higher authority has fully applied his mind to grant approval. It was submitted that though the Jt. CIT has not written in so many words about his satisfaction for granting approval but the fact remains that he has granted approval to the draft assessment order and only after that the Assessing Officer has passed the final assessment order and therefore, ground No. 5 of the appeal be dismissed and appeals be heard on merits. 9. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that in these cases, in view of a search carried out on the Sigma Group, the assessments of various assessees were reopened and various assessees were required to file income tax returns as required under the provisions of section 153A of the Act. The search was conducted on 23/08/2016 which continued upto 25/08/2016 and therefore, assessment year 2017-18 became the search year and the years preceding the search year became the subject matter of reopening u/s 153A of the Act. The issue raised by Learned counsel for the assessee is that the approval granted by the Addl. CIT is bad in law as it is humanly impossible to go through documents exceeding 17,800 in a single day and then grant approval on the same day. Since the controversy involved here is with respect to approval u/s 153D of the Act, it would be appropriate to first visit the provisions of section 153D of the Act, which for the sake of completeness are reproduced below: "SECTION 153D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 13 of 31 Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 9.1 The above provisions of section 153D of the Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 01/06/2007. In our humble understanding of the said provisions, we are of the opinion that the Legislature wanted the assessment/reassessment of the search cases should be made and order should be passed with the prior approval of superior authority. The word approval has not been defined in the Income Tax Act but the general meaning of word approval can be understood from Black Law of Dictionary which defines approval as: "The Act of confirming, rectifying, sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. To approve means to be satisfied with, to confirm, rectify, sanction or 'consent to some act or thing done by another, to consent officially, to rectify, to confirm, to pronounce good, thing or Judgment of, admitting propriety or excels or to pleas with." 9.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of South Carolina in State vs. Duckett 133 SC 85 [SC 1925], 130 SE 340 decided on 05.11.1925 held that approval implies knowledge and, the exercise or discretion after knowledge. ........................... ........................... Coming to the facts of the case, it is apparent from the documents on record that the approval was given by the Joint Commissioner in hasty manner without even going through the records as the records were in Jodhpur while the Joint Commissioner was camping at Udaipur. The entire exercise of seeking and granting of approval in all the 2 cases was completed in one single day itself i.e., 31-3-2013. Thus, it is I.T.(SS)A. Nos.639, 640, 641, 649, 642 & 651 apparent that the Joint Commissioner did not have adequate time to apply his mind to the material on the basis of which the assessing officer had made the draft assessment orders. Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in their orders, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, have laid down that the power to grant approval is not to be exercised casually and in routine manner and further the concerned authority, while granting approval, is expected to examine the entire material before approving the assessment order. It has also been laid down that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any authority, such authority is legally required to discharge the obligation by application of mind. In all the cases before us, the Department could not demonstrate, by cogent evidence, that the Joint Commissioner had adequate time with him so as to grant approval after duly examining the material prior to approving the assessment order. The circumstances indicate that this exercise was carried out by the Joint Commissioner in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Accordingly, respectfully following the ratio of the Co-ordinate Benches of Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 14 of 31 Mumbai and Allahabad as afore-mentioned and also applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT (supra), we hold that the Joint Commissioner has failed to grant approval in terms of section 153D of the Act i.e., after application of mind but has rather carried out exercise in utmost haste and in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the approval so granted by him is not an approval which can be sustained. Accordingly, assessments in three COs and nineteen appeals of the assessee(s), on identical facts, are liable to be annulled as suffering from the incurable defect of the approval not being proper. Accordingly, we annul the assessment orders in CO Nos. 8 to 10/Jodh/2016 and ITA Nos. 325 to 331/Jodh/2016. Thus, all the three COs and the nineteen appeals of the assessee, as aforesaid, are allowed." 10. Similarly we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sahara India vs. CIT & Others' [2008] 216 CTR 303 (S.C.) : [2008] 7 DTR (SC) 27: [2008] 300 ITR 403 (SC) while discussing the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of section 142(2A) of the Act, opined that the requirement of previous I.T.(SS)A. Nos.639, 640, 641, 649, 642 & 651 approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of said provision being an inbuilt protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the assessing officer, casts a very heavy duty on the said high- ranking authority to see it that the approval envisaged in the section is not turned into an empty ritual. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances and in view of judicial precedents relied on by Learned A. R. Ground No.5 in appeals is allowed and the assessments orders are annulled. Rest of the grounds were not argued by Learned A. R. therefore, rest of the grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 12. In nutshell, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed.” 5.1.2 In case of Sanjay Duggal (2021) (Del-Trib.) dt. 19.01.2021: The said Bench on identical issue has been pleased to observe as follows: “12. It may be noted that provisions of Section 153D provides for approval in case of “Each” assessment year. Therefore, each of the assessment year is required to be verified and approved by the JCIT being Approving Authority that it complies with Law as well as the procedure laid down. The assessee has filed details on record regarding returns filed under section 139(1) for A.Ys. 2010-2011 to 2015-2016. It is also explained that there are unabated assessments except A.Y. 2015-2016 in which the assessments have been abated. Therefore, for each unabated and abated assessments, the authorities below and the Approving Authority [JCIT] shall have to verify the incriminating material found during the course of search or the seized material if pertain to the same assessment year and its basis. The assessee has explained above that these cases are coming up because of the assessments framed in the case of M/s. JIL and others prior to the search in the case of assessee. Therefore, all material was within the knowledge of the Income Tax Authorities Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 15 of 31 prior to the search in the cases of the assessees. Therefore, for granting approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act, the Approving Authority shall have to verify and consider each assessment year and shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record to see whether in each assessment year there are un-abated or abated assessments and their effect, if any. But, in the present case, the Approving Authority i.e., JCIT has granted common approval for all the assessment years in respect of the single assessee. Thus, there is no application of mind on the part of JCIT while granting approval for all the common years instead of granting approval under section 153D for each assessment years separately. 13. In the present cases various approvals were granted by the JCIT, Central Range-1, New Delhi, and forwarding letter of the A.O. are placed on record in all the cases. In all the cases as per the forwarding letter of the A.O. only assessment records were forwarded to the JCIT, Range-1, New Delhi at the time of granting approval. Therefore, it is evident that the JCIT being the Approving Authority was neither having seized material nor the appraisal report or other material at the time of granting approval. In the approval under section 153D there is a reference to the A.O. letter only. There is no reference to the seized material or record or notice under section 142 and reply of the assessee and if procedure for its inspection or perusal is there. There is no material considered by the JCIT. Learned Counsel for the Assessee has pointed out that assessee has suffered serious prejudice because of non- application of mind on the part of the JCIT while granting approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act because the A.O. has made several double or triple additions on account of share capital, investments, FDRs purchased, loans, capital gains because these were created out of bank deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessees after the money transferred from the account of M/s. Alfa India. No telescopic benefit have been given as it was out of the source deposited in the bank accounts of the assessees. Netting of the money left have also not been considered and even the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the same has enhanced the assessments in some of the cases of the assessee. No steps have been taken by the A.O. for rectifying their mistakes when assessee filed petition for rectification under section 154 of the I.T. Act. Thus, there was inconsistencies and double additions made by the A.O. in various assessment years. It may also be noted that in the present case the facts stated in the impugned orders are that the sales of liquor are made by M/s. JIL to M/s. MAPSCO and Singla Group of cases and that part of the sale proceeds have been transferred to the account of M/s. Alfa India instead of paying the entire sale consideration to M/s. JIL. Thus, the nature of total receipt/addition is the sale proceeds originally to be received by M/s. JIL. If the part of the sale proceeds which were to be received by M/s. JIL and when transferred to the account of M/s. Alfa India Ltd., the entire part sale receipts cannot be the income either in the hands of M/s. JIL or M/s. Alfa India or the Assessees who may be the conduit as argued before us. The A.O. has failed to consider the concept of real income for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability and correct determination of income of the assessees. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., 225 ITR 746 (SC). This fact is also not verified and considered by the JCIT while granting approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act. It may be noted here that entire sale proceeds when cannot be added in Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 16 of 31 the hands of M/s JIL as income which is also not done in the case of M/s. JIL, rightly so, how the same sale proceeds could be added as income in the hands of assessees under section 68 of the I.T. Act is not understandable. Thus, the Approving Authority without application of mind and in a most mechanical and technical manner granted approval under section 153D even without reference to any reason in the Order under section 153D of the I.T. Act. We, even, otherwise failed to understand that in search cases how an approval can be granted to an assessment year which is required to be based only on incriminating material without verification of those material and its reference in the appraisal report. The JCIT even in approval did not mention if assessment record is seen by him. Another interesting aspect that has come to the notice on the basis of various documents submitted for approval as well as request for approval by the A.O. to the JCIT. We make a specific reference to letter dated 29.12.2017 written by ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi, which is placed at page-144 of the PB. This letter Dated 29.12.2017 is a request for obtaining approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act in the case of Shri Rajnish Talwar and family wherein the approval in the case of Shri Rajnish Talwar for A.Ys. 2010-2011 to 2016-2017 is sought for. The A.O. send the draft assessment order along with assessment records of the above named assessee. In paragraph-4 of the letter, A.O. stated as under: “It is certified that all issues raised in the appraisal reports have been duly examined with reference to the seized impounded material.” 15. Thus, the JCIT acted on certificate given by the A.O. without satisfying himself to the record/seized material etc., The A.O. sent only assessment records to the JCIT for appeals his approval. The identical is fact in the case of all the request for approval made by the A.O. but factual position noted above established that even assessment records have not been seen by the JCIT. The A.O. sent draft assessment orders for 07 assessment years on 29.12.2017 which were got approved on 30.12.2017 merely on the basis of draft assessment order. The JCIT in the approval Order Dated 30.12.2017 also mentioned that A.O. to ensure all the assessment proceedings are conducted as per procedure and Law. It would show that even JCIT was not satisfied with the assessment proceedings conducted by the A.O. as per Law and records. 16. In some of the cases the approval was granted on the date the request was made for approval by the A.O. In all those cases merely draft assessment order and the assessment folders were available with the A.O. For example in the case of Shri Sanjay Duggal family, in the case of Ms. Kritika Talwar on the same date the approval was granted and that too merely on the basis of the assessment records and draft assessment order and in most of the cases approval has been granted either on the same day or on the next day. Further, there is no reference that seized material as well as appraisal report have been verified by the JCIT. It is not clarified whether assessment record is also seen by the JCIT. It may also be noted that even in some of the Talwar group of cases approval is granted prior to 30.12.2017 but in main cases of Shri Sanjay Duggal and Rajnish Talwar the approval is granted on 30.12.2017. Therefore, without granting approval in the main cases how the JCIT satisfied himself with the assessment orders in group cases which is also not Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 17 of 31 explained. Therefore, the approval granted by the JCIT in all the cases are merely technical approval just to complete the formality and without application of mind as neither there was an examination of the seized documents and the relevance of various observations made by the Investigation Wing in appraisal report. Thus, we hold the approval under section 153D have been granted without application of mind and is invalid, bad in Law and is liable to be quashed. Since we have held that approval under section 153D is invalid and bad in law, therefore, A.O. cannot pass the assessment orders under section 153A of the I.T Act against all the assessees. Therefore, all assessment orders are vitiated for want of valid approval under section 153D of the I.T. Act and as such no addition could be made against all the assessees. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the assessment orders passed under section 153A of the I.T. Act as well as the impugned appellate Order. Resultantly, all additions are deleted. The additional grounds are allowed. In view of the above findings, the other issues on merits are left with academic discussion only. Accordingly, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed.” 5.1.3 In the case of Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. (2021) (Mum-Trib): The Hon’ble Bench held as under: “11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and material placed on record and case laws cited. The legal objection of transgression of requirements of approval under section 153D is in controversy. Pursuant to search carried out in the premises of the Assessee and other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under section 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years (AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority at the fag end of the limitation period on 29/12/2010 to meet the legal requirement imposed by section 153D of the Act. The Addl. CIT i.e. the superior authority has, in turn, granted a combined and consolidated approval for all 7 assessment years in prompt on 31/12/2010. 11.1 It may be pertinent to observe at this stage that the impugned assessment orders were passed u/s. 143(3) rws 153A of the Act for the AY 2003-04 to AY 2008-09 and for the AY 2009-10 u/s 143(3) of the Act pursuant to search carried out under s.132 of the Act. For passing such assessment orders, the Assessing Officer is governed by s.153D of the Act whereby the Assessing Officer should complete the assessment proceedings and prepare a draft assessment order which need to be placed before the approving authority i.e. Joint / Addl. Commissioner (designated authority giving approval to search assessments u/s. 153D of the Act). The approving authority is necessarily required to objectively evaluate such draft assessment order with due application of mind on various issues contained in such order so as to derive his/her conclusive satisfaction that the proposed action of AO is in conformity with subsisting law. The AO is obligated to pass the assessment order exactly, as per approval/directions of the designated authority. Inevitably, this evaluation is to be made on basis of material gathered at time of search as well as obtained in the course of the assessment proceeding. The Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 18 of 31 requirement of law is to grant approval not merely as a formality or a symbolic act but a mandatory requirement. 11.2 In the backdrop of facts narrated in the preceding paras, it is the contention on behalf of the assessee that approval granted under S. 153D does not meet the requirement of law and hence assessment orders passed in consequence of such non-est approval is a nullity in law. The assessment orders thus passed is vitiated in law which illegality cannot be cured. In support of charge of nonest approval, several contentions have been raised viz (i) the approval accorded under section 153D is without any occasion to refer to the assessment records and seized material, if any, incriminating the assessee and hence such approval is in the realm of an abstract approval of draft assessment orders which was unsubstantiated and unsupported and consequently suffered from total non-application of mind (ii) approval granted hurriedly in a spur involving voluminous assessments spanning over 7 assessment years and thus only a symbolic exercise to meet the requirement of law (iii) Total lack of objectivity in drawing satisfaction on objective material while giving a combined approval for 7 assessments and also without evaluating the nuances of each assessment year involved (iv) the mundane action of Addl. CIT under S. 153D in a cosmetic manner gives infallible impression of approval on dotted line and thus defeats the purpose of supervision of search assessments (iv) initialed draft assessment orders not available in office records. 11.3 As observed, Section 153D bestows a supervisory jurisdiction on the designated authority in respect of search related assessment and thus enjoins a salutary duty of statutory nature. The designated superior authority is thus expected to confirm to the statutory requirement in letter and spirit. It is evident from the communication of AO and consequent approval thereon under S. 153D that no assessment record for any assessment year in question or any seized material had traveled to the authority concerned for his objective consideration of the same qua the draft assessment orders. No reference in this regard is made in the approval note either which may discard such allegation as untrue. No other material or order sheet in assessment proceedings etc. were placed before us either to establish otherwise. Except these two documents namely, a solitary communication from AO to the Addl. CIT dated 29/12/2010 and an in turn approval by Addl. CIT dated 31/12/2010, there is nothing else before us to gauge the facts differently. A bare glance at the approval so accorded makes it evident that such approval is generic and listless and accorded in a blanket manner without any reference to any issue in respect of any of the 7 assessment years. Apparently, the approval has been granted on a dotted line without any availability of reasonable time which firms up the belief towards non application of mind. Besides, the approval has been granted in a consolidated manner for all assessment years for which voluminous assessment orders were prepared. The whole sequence of action apparently appears to be illusory to merely meet the requirement of law as an empty formality. It is also alleged on behalf of assessee that the draft assessment orders are not available on record which allegation has not been rebutted. The draft assessment orders showing some marking / intials etc. could have given a valuable input on the applicability of mind and could throw light on objectivity applied owing to total silence on any Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 19 of 31 delineation on these aspects in the approval memo. The records before us are totally muted. 11.4 Based on solitary communication placed before us, it is ostensible that draft assessment orders were placed before the Addl. CIT on 29.12.2010 for the first time. It is axiomatic from the plain reading of approval memo that various assessment orders and the issues incorporated in the assessment orders, were never subjected to any discussion with the authority granting approval prior to 29.12.2010. It is evident from the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008 that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it obligatory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority apply their mind on the materials and other attending circumstances on the basis of which the Assessing officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and on the basis of seized materials, the superior authority is required to accord approval the respective Assessment order. Solemn object of entrusting the duty of Approval of assessment in search cases is that the Additional CIT, with his experience and maturity of understanding should at least minimally scrutinize the seized documents and any other material forming the foundation of Assessment. It is elementary that whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any statutory authority, such authority is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, not even formally but after due application of mind. Thus, the obligation of granting Approval acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO. The approval granted under section 153D of the Act should necessarily reflect due application of mind and if the same is subjected to judicial scrutiny, it should stand for itself and should be self-defending. There are long line of judicial precedents which provides guidance in applying the law in this regard. 11.5 At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in the instant case, approving authority did not mention anything in the approval memo towards his/her process of deriving satisfaction so as to exhibit his/her due application of mind. We may observe that Para 2 of the above approval letter merely says that "Approval is hereby accorded u/s. 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to complete assessments u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act in the following case on the basis of draft assessment orders..."which clearly proves that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass the order only on the basis of contents mentioned in the draft assessment order without any application of mind and seized materials were not looked at and/or other enquiry and examination was never carried out. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the said order was approved, solely relying upon the implied undertaking obtained from the Assessing Officer in the form of draft assessment order that AO has taken due care while framing respective draft assessment orders and that all the observations made in the appraisal report relating to examination/investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed to supervise. The addl. CIT in short appears to have adopted a short cut in the matter and an Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 20 of 31 undertaking from AO was considered adequate by him/ her to accord approval in all assessments involved. Manifestly, the Additional CIT, without any consideration of merits in proposed adjustments with reference to appraisal report, incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT, Central has rendered the Approval to be a mere formality and cannot be countenanced in law. 11.6 There are several decisions, which supports the view that approval granted by the superior authority in mechanical manner defeats the very purpose of obtaining approval u/s 153D. Such perfunctory approval has no legal sanctity in the eyes of the law. The decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shreelekha Damani vs. DCIT 173 TTJ 332(Mum.) and approved by jurisdictional High Court subsequently as reported in 307 CTR 218 affirms the plea of the Assessee. 11.7 Very recently, the co-ordinate bench in Sanjay Duggal & ors (ITA 1813/Del/2019 & ors; order dated 19.01.2021 has also echoed the same view after a detailed analysis of similar facts and also expressed a discordant note on such mechanical exercise of responsibility placed on designated authority under section 153D of the Act. Hence, vindicated by the factual position as noted in preceding paras, we find considerable force in the plea raised by the Assessee against maintainability of hollow approval under S. 153D totally devoid of any application of mind. The approval so granted under the shelter of section 153D, does not, in our view, pass the test of legitimacy. The Assessment orders of various assessment years as a consequence of such inexplicable approval lacks legitimacy. Consequently, the impugned assessments relatable to search in captioned appeals are non-est and a nullity and hence quashed.” 5.1.4 The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Raipur Bench in Goyal Energy & Steel (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, reported in [2021] 214 TTJ (Asr) 058 (Amritsar-Trib.). The said Bench on identical issue has been pleased to observe as follows: “10. Now adverting to the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal relates to validity of approval under section 153D and Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal relates to validity of the additions under section 68 in absence of incriminating evidence found during search. The ld AR for the assessee submits that it is a matter of fact that the AO had passed a single consolidated order for all the years under assessment rather than passing separate orders for “each year” under section 153A. Further, the AO sought a consolidated approval for about 14 different assessee from different groups under her single letter dated 14.12.2018. At the time of assessment, the assessee furnished its reply on 14.12.2018 before the AO, wherein the assessee raised several objections and contentions against the proposed additions in show cause notice. The assessee was directed to file reply by 07.12.2018. The assessee filed its reply on Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 21 of 31 14.12.2018, which was duly accepted by AO, which is otherwise clearly discernable in para 3.7 of the assessment order. In the said reply the assessee explained the concept of abated and unabated assessment, proof of identity and existence of the investor Company, importance of cross- examination, etc. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that mere perusal of contents of approval granted under section 153D, it can be inferred from the approval sought by AO, from the Ld. JCIT was without considering such reply of the assessee dated 14.12.2018. The copy of the same is placed on record before the Hon’ble bench. The ld.AR for the assessee submits that the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (JCIT) granted approval for finalizing the assessment on the request of the assessing officer without indicating any perusal of records, replies and material gathered in the course of search. Rather JCIT categorically mentions that even with respect to orders to be passed by the assessing officer he has ‘presumed’ that necessary records have been perused and legal mandate had been complied. 11. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the material available on record would demonstrate that the JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As evident from the communication made by A.O. to the JCIT dated 14.12.2018. The AO in the said letter neither makes any iota of reference as to what are the seized materials nor furnishes any assurance with respect to approval and appraisal of all evidences and corresponding reply filed by the assessee. The JCIT rather than confirming such lacunae at the part of the assessing officer, goes on to act in oblivion by “presuming” that the necessary opportunity has been given to the assessee and all the records, evidences and materials have been thoroughly verified. Thus, in a bulk approval of 95 assessment orders on a presumption basis proves the ritualistic approval to comply with the provisions of law which clearly defeat the intent and purpose behind insertion of section 153D brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2007. The JCIT has granted a blanket approval for 95 cases without giving any reasoning at all in a consolidated manner for all assessment years for different assessee for which voluminous assessment orders on a presumptive basis. 12. To buttress his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decision; * Mumbai Tribunal in case of Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd. (I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others) (dated 07.04.2021), * Ranchi Tribunal in Rajat Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Central Circle 1) ([2020] 181 ITD 368 (Ranchi-Trib.), * Cuttack Tribunal in Dilip Constructions Private Limited Vs. ACIT IT(SS)A Nos. 66 to 71/CTK/2018. 13. In other alternative submissions the ld AR for the assessee submits that the AO passed a single order in a hasty manner to make the impugned addition, applying same facts to each of the assessment year without weighing the facts and legality of each assessment year under consideration, Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 22 of 31 which is in complete violation of the statutory provisions of law and guidelines laid down by various courts and Special Bench of Tribunal. 14. The ld AR for the assessee submits that search action was carried out on assessee group on 17.01.2017. There was a marriage function in the Goyal family, which was at concluding stage. The search action continued till 2.00 am of 22.01.2017. The authorised officer obtained a confessional statement of Deepak Aggarwal, Director of the assessee company by putting pressure and coercion for surrender of share capital. The statement of the Deepak Aggarwal was not recorded in the presence of Panchas. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal retracted from his statement by filing affidavit before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, copy of which is filed. The ld.AR for the assessee retreated that no incriminating evidence qua the share capital was found during the search. The authorised officer has not recorded even single evidence on the Panchnama about such evidence. The assessment order stands void-ab-initio for unabated assessment years in absence of incriminating evidence. The ld AR for the assessee furnished the year wise last date for issuing notice under section 143(2) for all Assessment Years in the following manner; AY Last date for issuing notice u/s 143(2) 2011-12 30.09.2012 2012-13 30.09.2013 2014-15 30.09.2015 2015-16 30.09.2016 15. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the statement under section 132(4) (obtained in absence of Panchas) cannot be treated incriminating evidence as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). To support his submissions the ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following decisions; * CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (Delhi High Court) (ITA Nos. 707, 709 and 713 of 2014), * M/s All Cargo Logistics Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA 5018 to 5022 & 5059/M/10) (Special Bench), * R.R. Energy (ITA No. 225/RPR/2015 and * Sanjay Duggal vs. ACIT, ITA 1813/Del/2019 dated 19.01.2021 16. On the other hand the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that in the search matters the draft assessment order is always prepared under the guidance of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (JCIT). The assessee was provided full opportunity during the assessment. The assessment proceedings are also supervised by JCIT to protect the interest of revenue. The JCIT granted approval of the draft assessment after considering the material placed before him. There is no unwarranted thing in the order of assessing officer. There is Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 23 of 31 no mandate in the statue to pass separate order for each and every assessment years as argued by AR of the assessee. The AO has made separate additions in each assessment year and ultimately assessed income for each year separately. The AO before making additions made investigation for each of the investor company, which are Kolkata based entity. 17. In the rejoinder submissions the ld. AR for the assessee submits that no such investigation report was provided to the assessee. The ld. AR retreated that the additions were made in the unabated assessment in absence of the incriminating material found during search; therefore, all such additions are liable to be deleted. The statement of the director of the assessee-company cannot be treated incrementing evidence. Even otherwise there is no evidentiary value of such statement, which was not recorded during the search proceeding. 18. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of the lower authorities. We have also perused the copy of the Panchnama dated 23.01.2017. There is no dispute that a search action was carried out on the assessee group on 17.01.2017. No incrementing evidence qua the share application money was found and recorded by the authorised officer in the Panchnama dated 22.01.2017 and 28.02.2017. A discloser statement of Director namely Deepak Aggarwal was recorded on 24.01.2017. The statement was retracted on 27.01.2017 by making sworn statement before Sub-divisional Magistrate. It is further admitted facts that on the date of search no assessment of AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015- 16 was pending and/ or time limit for issuing notice under section 143(2) has already elapsed. Thus, any addition in the unabated assessment can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. The assessee right from the beginning has raised plea that no incriminating evidence qua the alleged share application or premium was found in the search on 17.01.2017. We find there is no reference in the Panchnama about incriminating evidence qua the share application money or share premium for all the impugned assessment years. We further find that the assessee while filing reply before AO on 14.12.2018, in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018, clearly stated there is no incriminating evidences against the assessee for making the said additions. We find that the AO passed the assessment order on 14.12.2018 and placed the same before JCIT for his approval, thus there is no consideration of material facts by A.O. with regard to the assessee’s reply dated 14.12.2018 filed before the AO in response to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2018. We further find that the assessee raised specific ground of appeal before ld CIT(A), vide ground No.4, that addition in the assessment is outside of search assessment as no incriminating material was seized in search. However, the ld CIT(A) has not discussed the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd (supra) held that statement recorded under section 132(4) does not itself constitute incriminating material. Thus, the statement of Deepak Aggarwal cannot be treated as incriminating evidence for making basis for addition of share premium under section 68 of the Act. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 24 of 31 20. Further, Delhi High Court in celebrated case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (supra) held that completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO while making assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. The decision of Delhi High Court has been upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court in Singhad Technical Education Society (397 ITR 344 SC). In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussions, no addition under section 68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply on 14.12.2018. In the said reply the assessee raised factual and legal issue. The reply of the assessee is duly acknowledged by AO in para 3.7 of his order. The AO sent the draft assessment order on 14.12.2018 itself to the officer of JCIT, vide reference No. F.No. ACIT (C) -2 RPR/153D/Goyel & Satya/2018-19 dated 14.12.2018, copy of which is placed on record. For proper appreciation of facts the contents of approval dated 22.12.2018 is extracted below: Office of the Jt.CIT (Central), Raipur Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 Email: [e-mail] Tel/Fax [phone] F.No.JCIT(C)/RPR/153D/2018-19 Dated: 22-12-2018 To, The Asst. CIT (Central)-2, Raipur Subject – Approval under u/s 153D of the I.T.Act – Goyal, Satya & Gumber Group – Regarding. Please refer to your letter in F.No. ACIT(C)-2/RPR/153D/Goyal & Satya/2018- 19 dated 05/12/2018, F.No. ACIT(C)-2/RPR/153D/ Goyal & Sriram Gumber/ 2018-19 dated 07/12/2018 and F.No. ACIT(C)/RPR/153D/Goyal & Satya/2018-19 dated 14/12/2018. 2. The draft assessment orders u/s 153D and 143(3) in the following cases submitted vide above mentioned letter are hereby approved u/s 153D of the I.T.Act – S.No. Name of the assessee PAN AY 1 Arun Agrawal ACJPA4642B 2011-12 to 2017-18 2 Deepak Agrawal ACJPA4646F 2011-12 to 2017-18 3 Goyal Energy and Steel P Ltd AACCG2758E 2011-12 to 2017-18 4 Goyal Traders AACFG1974F 2011-12 to 2017-18 5 Ratanlal Agrawal ACJPA4620R 2011-12 to 2017-18 Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 25 of 31 6 Goyal Enterprises AAMFG4058J 2011-12 to 2017-18 7 Satya Power and Ispat Ltd AAHCS4472N 2011-12 to 2017-18 3. Further in view of this office letter no. F. No. JCIT(C)/RPR/Draft Asst. Order/2016-17/dated 09.09.2016 it is presumed that the AO has: • Given proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee • thoroughly verified the seized material and that there are no adverse findings • satisfied himself that all the issues emanating from the records have been verified and the additions wherever required have been proposed. 4. You may act accordingly. The copy of the final order may be submitted for record purpose in this office. Encl: case records Sd/- (R.M. Mujumdar) Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Range- Central, Raipur. 22. On careful perusal of the approval order of JCIT, we find that the JCIT while granting approval on 22.12.2018 recorded that “it is presumed that the AO has – given proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thoroughly verified the seized material and that there is no adverse finding, satisfy himself that all issues emanating from the record have been verified and additions wherever required have been proposed.” 23. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently argued that JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind and that from the communication made to the JCIT by AO vide letter dated 14.12.2018, the AO had not made any iota of reference as to what are the seized materials nor furnishes any assurance with respect to approval and appraisal of all evidences and corresponding reply by the assessee. And that ld. JCIT approved the assessment order by presuming that the necessary opportunity has been given to the assessee and all the records, evidences and materials have been thoroughly verified. The JCIT granted bulk approval of 95 assessment orders which clearly defeats the intent and purpose behind insertion of section 153D brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2007. 24. We find that the ld. JCIT while granting approval, presumed that Assessing Officer has given proper hearing to the assessee and thoroughly verified seized material and there are no adverse findings, satisfied himself that all the issues emanating from the records have been verified and additions wherever required have been proposed. We further find that there is no independent application of mind on the part of ld. JCIT while granting the approval. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 26 of 31 25. We find that coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal while considering the similar ground of appeal in granting bulk approval of the assessment under section 153A, in case of Arch Pharmalabs Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) held that the approval accorded under section 153D is without any occasion to refer to the assessment records and seized material, if any, incriminating the assessee and hence such approval is in the realm of an abstract approval of draft assessment orders which was unsubstantiated and unsupported and consequently suffered from total non-application of mind. The relevant part of the order is extracted below: “11.5 At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in the instant case, approving authority did not mention anything in the approval memo towards his/ her process of deriving satisfaction so as to exhibit his/her due application of mind. We may observe that Para 2 of the above approval letter merely says that "Approval is hereby accorded u/s. 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to complete assessments u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act in the following case on the basis of draft assessment orders..."which clearly proves that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass the order only on the basis of contents mentioned in the draft assessment order without any application of mind and seized materials were not looked at and/or other enquiry and examination was never carried out. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the said order was approved, solely relying upon the implied undertaking obtained from the Assessing Officer in the form of draft assessment order that AO has taken due care while framing respective draft assessment orders and that all the observations made in the appraisal report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed to supervise. The addl. CIT in short appears to have adopted a short cut in the matter and an undertaking from AO was considered adequate by him/ her to accord approval in all assessments involved. Manifestly, the Additional CIT, without any consideration of merits in proposed adjustments with reference to appraisal report, incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Additional CIT, Central has rendered the Approval to be a mere formality and cannot be countenanced in law. 26. Similar view was taken by Coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in Sanjay Duggal & others (supra). 27. So far as the contention of ld CIT-DR that the assessment under section 153A is passed under the supervision of JCIT and that JCIT granted approval of the draft assessment after considering the material placed before him. We do not find any such satisfaction in the approval order that draft assessment after considering the material placed before him, rather the ld JCIT recorded that it is presumed that the AO granted proper opportunity to the assessee etc. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 27 of 31 28. In view, of aforesaid discussion and respectfully following the decisions of coordinate benches in Sanjay Duggal & others (supra) and Archpharma Labs & Acrh Impex P Ltd (supra), we find convincing force in the submissions of the assessee that the approval granted by JCIT suffer from non-application of mind and depends on presumption of proper performance of duty by A.O. such per functionary approval under section 153D cannot termed as legitimate. The consequential assessment orders based on non-est approval under section 153D, thus are void-ab-initio on this ground alone. Considering the facts that we have allowed the appeal on the legal issues therefore, consideration of appeal on merit have become academic.” 5.1.5 In the case of Inder International (2021) (Chandigarh-Trib) dtd. 7-6-21: The said Bench held as under: “14. In view of the above decision and the fact that in the present case before us also the Addl.CIT has accorded the approval u/s!53D only on 29-6- 17 when the AO placed the assessment order on that very date i.e., 29-6-17. The relevant approval by the Addl. CIT reads as under: "Necessary statutory approval u/s 153D is given to pass the above assessment order as such. Assessment record in this case is returned herewith." 15. From the above, it is clear that this is totally non application of mind by the Addl. CIT, who is the supervising authority of the AO while granting statutory approval u/s!53D, the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions cited above. In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl. CIT did not mention anything in the approval memo towards his process of deriving satisfaction so as to exhibit his due application of mind. We noted that the Addl. CIT merely approved the letter and the relevant para is noted in above paras. We noted that the relevant para of the above approval letter merely says that "Necessary statutory approval u/s 153D is given to pass the above assessment order as such. Assessment record in this case is returned herewith..." which clearly proves that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass the order only on the basis of contents mentioned in the draft assessment order without any application of mind and seized materials were not looked at because that was not available before him at the time of granting of approval to the draft assessment order and other enquiry and examination was never carried out. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the said order was approved solely relying upon the implied undertaking obtained from the AO in the form of draft assessment order that AO has taken due care while framing respective draft assessment orders and that all the observations made in the appraisal report relating to examination/ investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 28 of 31 Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his statutory functions and delightfully relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Addl.CIT was supposed to supervise. The Addl.CIT in short appears to have adopted a short-cut in the matter and an undertaking from AO was considered adequate by him to accord approval in all assessments involved. Manifestly, the Addl. CIT, without any consideration of merits in proposed additions with reference to incriminating material collected in search etc. has proceeded to grant a simplicitor approval. This approach of the Addl. CIT, Central has rendered the approval to be a mere formality and cannot be considered as actual approval in law. Hence, we quash the assessment framed u/s!53A on this additional ground alone. 16. Needless to say that we need not adjudicate the grounds raised on merits by the assessee as we have already quashed the assessment on jurisdictional issue that the statutory approval granted u/s!53D is without application of mind by the Addl.CIT. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5.1.6 We have further carefully considered the judgment in case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. UOI, reported in (2019) 366 ELT 253. While dealing with the identical issue, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has been pleased to observe as follows: "28. When an Authority is required to give his approval, it is also to be understood that such Authority makes an application of mind as to whether the matter that is required to be approved satisfies all the requirements of Law or procedure to which it may be subjected. In other words, grant of approval and application of mind as to whether such approval is to be granted must coexist and, therefore, where an Authority grants an approval it is also to be construed that there was due application of mind that the subject matter approved and satisfies all the legal and procedural requirements." 5.1.7 The crux of the judgment as relied upon as mentioned hereinabove is this that the required approval should satisfy all the statutory requirements having independent due application of mind and satisfy all the legal and procedural requirements which is in our considered opinion is absent in the case in hand. 5.1.8 We have further considered the judgment relied upon by the assessee in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC), wherein, it is held that prior approval by the CIT or CCIT in terms of Section 142(2A) of the Act is an inbuilt protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Ld. AO. Casting upon a serious duty upon the high ranking authority to take care of this particular aspect of the matter on account of approval envisaged in Section has now turned into an empty ritual. The approval is required to be granted only on the basis of documents available on record and that must Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 29 of 31 reflect proper application of mind on the facts and circumstances of the case as of the ultimate ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5.1.9 On this aspect, we have also relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 3/2008, dtd. 12.03.2008, whereby and whereunder, the CBDT has issued instructions regarding mandatory approval u/s153D of the Act in the event, the order is passed by an AO below the rank of JCIT. The same is also in reiterating the view taken by us. We would like to note that the essence of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahara India (supra) in regard granting of approval under Section 142(2A) of the Act is also applicable in the instant case in regard to granting approval under Section 153D of the Act. The statutory requirement as envisaged and further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment is equally applicable in the case in hand. 5.2 The Revenue has failed to place any cogent evidence to the effect of granting approval of the draft assessment order upon exercising adequate time and upon examining the materials needs to be considered in terms of the statutory provision. We do not find any proper application of mind by the Addl. CIT rather he has carried out exercise in utmost haste and that too in mechanical manner, not in terms of the mandate prescribed under Section 153D of the Act. The same is, therefore, not found to be sustainable. We have also discussed different judgments passed by different judicial forums on the identical issue and has been inspired to come to the conclusion as made by us hereinabove. We, therefore, set aside the approval granted by the ACIT (Central), Bhopal. The consequential impugned assessment orders on this nonest approval under Section 153D of the Act are, thus, void-ab-initio and on this score alone, the entire proceeding is, thus, quashed. This covers both abated and unabated assessments. Cross Objection Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2021 and IT(SS)A Nos. 36 & 37/Ind/2020 filed by the appellant stand allowed. Consequently, departmental appeals become infructuous and thus dismissed as infructuous. Since, the additions have been deleted by us on the ground of non-compliance of mandate prescribed under Section 153D of the Act, the other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic. No further adjudication is required.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee’s name ‘Prakash Assudani’ alongwith PAN ‘AEFPA8202H’ appears at S.No. 1 and the name of M/s Shri Gumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd. appears at S.No. 3 in the aforesaid proposal-letter dated 28.12.2018 and approval dated 29.12.2018 u/s 153D, extensively dealt by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore; therefore the case of assessee is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench in the above order and nothing more is required to be examined or analysed. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to apply the same decision to the present Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 30 of 31 appeals of assessee and quash the entire assessment proceeding done by revenue-authorities. 10. We have carefully considered submissions of assessee and perused the documents filed in the Paper-Book as well as the aforesaid order of Co- ordinate Bench. On a careful consideration, we find that the assessee is also a part of the same search; same assessment-proceeding; same proposal letter dated 28.12.2018 sent by same AO to same Addl. CIT seeking approval u/s 153D; and same approval dated 29.12.2018 granted by same Addl. CIT u/s 153D, as in ITA No. 70 to 76/Ind/2020, DCIT Vs. M/s Shri Gurumukhdas Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Ld. DR representing the revenue could not contradict or rebut this finding expressed by us in the open court. Therefore, respectfully following the view already taken by Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench, we too hold that there was no application of mind by Ld. Addl. CIT who has granted approval u/s 153D in a mechanical manner, not in terms of the mandate prescribed u/s 153D of the Act. Consequently, we too quash the assessment-orders passed by Ld. AO in all these appeals before us. The assessee succeeds in its claim. 11. Since we have quashed the assessment-orders, other grounds (original as well as additional) are left open and we do not adjudicate them at this stage. 12. Resultantly, these appeals of assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Prakash Assudani IT(SS)A No.279 to 285/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 31 of 31 िदनांक /Dated : 25.05.2023 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 1. Date of taking dictation 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 4. Date on which the approved draft is placed before other Member 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 8. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9. Date of dispatch of the Order