RAMESHWARAM STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LTD.,CHHATTISGARH V. DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 1014/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Rameshwaram Steel and Power Private Ltd., which appealed against the assessment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, New Delhi, for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessments were based on documents seized during a search operation at the premises of the Monnet Group. The primary legal contention was the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires prior approval for assessments in cases of search and seizure. The Tribunal examined whether the approval was granted with due application of mind or merely as a formality.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705473 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Skylark hatcheries Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, Pawan Kumar Midha Vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central), M/s Confident Distributors Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-1, Faridabad, Inder Chand Bajaj Vs. DCIT Central Circle-32 Delhi, Shiv Kumar Nayyar vs. PCIT, Subodh Agarwal vs. PCIT, Serajjudin & Co vs. ACIT, Ram Narayan Bajaj Vs. DCIT, Anuj Bansal vs. PCIT, Subhash Dabas vs. PCIT, ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APPELLANT ASSESSEE; DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; AYUSH GARG
• Keywords: Set aside; Question of law; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Assessment record; Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1014/DEL/2021 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITA No.1015/DEL/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rameshwaram Steel and Power Private Ltd., 1, Village Bade Guma, Ghar Ghoda, Raigarh CHHATTISGARH Delhi- 496001 PAN No. AACCR7462A Vs . The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeals filed by appellant/assessee are against common order dated 08.07.2021 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Assessee by: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Ayush Garg, CA Department by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 30.06.2025 ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 2 referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of order dated 28.03.2013 of the Learned Assessing Officer/DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) under Sections 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on 19.11.2010 was conducted in Monnet Group of Cases. During search operation at the premises of the group, certain documents belonging to M/s. Rameshwaram Steel and Power Ltd. were found and seized. Case of assessee company was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi, vide letter dated 04.03.2011. All the papers and documents pertaining to the assessee were examined and after satisfying that the provisions of section 153C of the Act, notice under Section 153C was issued on 21.05.2012 for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Vide letter dated 14.09.2012, assessee was reminded to comply with the notices issued. In response to notices, Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee company filed letter dated 08.10.2012 challenging notice under Section 153C of the Act for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11. Satisfaction recorded under Section 153C of the Act was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 18.10.2012. Notice under ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 3 Section 142(1) along with questionnaire dated 08.11.2012 was issued. The Learned Authorised Representative of assessee company vide letter dated 22.11.2012 challenged notice under Section 153C of the Act. The Learned Authorised Representative vide letter dated 03.12.2012 filed rectification petition against objections dated 22.11.2022. Vide letter dated 05.12.2012, assessee was conveyed that the petition dated 03.12.2012 was found to be irrelevant. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO passed assessment order dated 28.02.2013. 3. Against order dated 28.03.2013 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) which were partly allowed vide order dated 08.07.2021. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/applicant preferred present above captioned appeals. 5. Appellant/assessee vide letter dated 08.05.2025, submitted application that applicant/assessee raised six grounds of appeals but inadvertently left out grounds relating to assessment order being bad in law having been passed without complying provisions of section 153D of the Act and pleaded for admission of following additional ground of appeal: ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 4 “7.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act is in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Act and as such the same is bad in eyes of law. (ii) That the purported approval under Section 153D of the Act is mechanical and without application of mind and hence the same is illegal and bad in law.” 6. Learned Authorised Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that as per section 153D that 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 mandatory prior approval in accordance to the provision of section 153D of the Act. The approval must not be a mere formality it must be granted after due application of mind to each assessment year separately, based on examination of the material and draft orders placed before the approving authority. It is a well settled position in law that statutory approval granted by the authority u/s 153D of the Act enabling the Id. AO to complete the search assessment, should be given after due application of mind. Thus, approval under section 153D of the Act, cannot be granted in the ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 5 mechanical manner. All these contentions raised on behalf of the assessee are supported by the following judicial pronouncements in this regard: ➤ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s. Skylark hatcheries Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2545/Del/2023, dated 27.02.2025. \"8. The same view is expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi high court in other cases relied upon by the Id. AR. The Hon'ble Orissa High court in the case of Serajjudin & Co reported in [2023] SCC Online Ori 992 which has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023 under identical circumstances has held the approval granted as invalid. Thus by respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar, reported supra, and also in the case of Serajjudin & Co, supra, the approval granted in this case is without application of mind and consequently the assessment order is annulled. The ground of appeal No. 5 of the assessee is allowed\" ➤ ITAT Delhi in the case of Pawan Kumar Midha Vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central), 2025 (4) TMI 142, dated 21.03.2025 > ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s Confident Distributors Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT CC-1, Faridabad, 2025 (3) TMI 1217, dated 07.03.2025 ➤ ITAT Delhi in the case of Inder Chand Bajaj Vs. DCIT Central Circle-32 Delhi, 2025 (1) TMI 970, dated 17.01.2025. ➤ HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 09.08.2024 dismissed the SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 6 ➤ Case of the assessee is covered by the judgement of HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR 2024 (6) TMI 29-DATED 15.05.2024 wherein hon'ble court held as under: \"15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind.” ➤ Above judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court recently applied by co-ordinate bench of Hon'ble ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF PRATEEKNAGPAL VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, DELHI 2025 (1) TMI 651 ITAT DELHI, Dated: - 10-1-2025 quashing the entire proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Ld. ACIT, Central Range-4, Delhi ➤ THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VERSUS SUBODH AGARWAL, 2023 (2) TMI 1072- ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, Dated: - 12-12-2022 ➤ MYSORE BHASKARA PANKAJA VERSUS ACIT, NEW DELHI 2024 (7) TMI 1134 ITAT DELHI Dated:-10-7-2024 7. Further reliance can also be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: ➤ SANJAY DUGGAL, KRITIKA TALWAR, ARUN DUGGAL, RATNA TALWAR, CIO KAPIL GOEL, ADV, NEHA DUGGAL, NANY DUGGAL, POONAM DUGGAL, NEERU DUGGAL, RAJNISH TALWAR, RATNASHRI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD, DUGGAL ESTATE PVT. LTD, DUGGAL & SONS BUILDWELL P.LTD., VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI, 2021 (1) TMI 909 ITAT DELHI Dated: 19-1-2021 ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 7 ➤ SEH REALTORS PVT. LTD VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA), 2024 (7) TMI 1562-ITAT Delhi dated: - 23-7-2024 ➤ DAZE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, C/O. KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, 2024 (9) TMI 1679 ITAT DELHI Dated: - 30-9-2024 ➤ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 NEW DELHI VERSUS AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA AND AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8 NEW DELHI. 7. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities Below and submitted that it cannot be disbelieved that Additional CIT hold the concurrent jurisdiction and that the assessment is a continuous process involving administrative as well statutory roles being donned by the Addl. CIT. And it is incumbent on the approving authority to examine and monitor the assessments which can't be denied if the same is not reduced in writing at every point of time till the finalization of the assessment. The approval of the approving authority underlines that he has examined the assessment records, relevant copies of seized documents and the relevant issues arising from the material on record judiciously in independent manner by way of due application of mind. The appellant has to positively prove that ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 8 there is a case of non-application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Relevant seized documents in a case are always part of the assessment records as per practice, and requirement of the work. They are not kept separately as relevant seized material is frequently referred to by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings and also made part of assessment order most of the time. In fact, as per the law, seized material is considered as part of records before Assessing Officer and all such seized records, return of income, notices etc. used during an assessment proceeding when considered collectively is known as 'Assessment record'. Therefore, from the letter seeking approval, it is evident that the entire assessment records which included seized material was placed before the approving authority for the purpose of taking decision with regard to approval under section 153D of the Act. In view of aforesaid submissions, it cannot be inferred in any manner from the letter seeking approval by the AO and the letter granting approval by the Addl. CIT that approval under section 153D of the Act was granted in mechanical manner without independent application of mind by the Addl. CIT. Further, in search and seizure cases, ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 9 an Addl. CIT is well aware about progress of the assessment proceedings, relevant issues of different assessee, nature and content of the seized material in light of the fact that the as per the CBDT guideline vide F. No. 286/161/2006-IT (Inv.II) dated 22.12.2006, copy of appraisal report is shared by Investigation Wing with both that the assessing officer and Joint CIT. In fact, CBDT guideline dated 22.12.2006 on the subject of the search and Seizure Assessments clearly outlines such close coordination. Thus, as per the prevailing Practice and Guidelines, the approving authority has good idea of issues involved in particular case before hand i.e. much before the cases are sent to him for approval Under Section 153D of the Act. Therefore, in light of such peculiar fact of instant case, it cannot be inferred that the AddI. CIT was not in a position to independently apply his mind in judicial manner to the case of assessee on the same day. 8. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. v Income-tax Officer Ward 2(3), Chennai [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 has held that in case of an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure, the entire ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 10 proceedings would not be vitiated. Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP(C) No. 340 of 2019 against the order in IA 3123/2018 in OS 125/2018 of II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam dated 23.06.2022, has held that the \"Courts should endeavor to dispose of a case on merits rather than on default.\" Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiyana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors on 09.06.2010 in Civil Appeal NO. 2395 of 2008 also held that: \"......After all, justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold. Both sides had tried to argue the matter on merits but we refrain ourselves from touching the merits of the matter as that can best be done by the Executing Court which had denied an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and to prove the issues so formulated. In our opinion, ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and matter is emitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of appellant's objections filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal 1 rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.\" 9. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 11 the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number of cases approved in a day were high. There cannot be any threshold limit set for the same. How many cases will be considered unreasonably high and how many cases will be considered reasonable? Every approval needs to be examined in light of its peculiar facts such as number of issue involved, nature of issue involved, modus-operandi involved, number of cases involved and inter-relationship among facts of such cases. If identical issues are involved involving same modus-operandi and cases are of same search group only, it would not be unreasonable to consider that an approving authority will be able to apply its independent mind judiciously to relatively larger number of cases in a single day. Ultimately, it boils down to factual matrix of the cases sent for approval. In the instant case, in light of the factual matrix that additions were made in different cases of the group on the same ground based on same factual position with regard to same accommodation entry provider and involving same modus-operandi, it would be justified to consider that the approving authority would have been in a position to apply his mind to all such cases sent for approval by the AO on the same day, particularly when number ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 12 of such cases is not too high and facts/issues involved are in the knowledge of approving authority beforehand i.e. before receiving proposal for approval. 10. From the examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal that in additional ground of appeal nos. 7(i) and (ii) assessment order dated 28.03.2013 under Section 153C of the Act in violation of section 153D mandatory provisions of section 153D has been raised. Para no.13 of the assessment order mentions “This order has been passed with the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-II, New Delhi, as per approval accorded vide F.No.Addl. CIT(CR)-III/2012-13.” 11. Section 153D approval sheet regarding the Dates of Approval and assessment order of present cases of assessee and others as per appellant/assessee is as below: ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 13 ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 14 12. From above table of dates, it is evident on record that the ACIT has granted approval under Section 153D of the Act in respect of several cases by a single letter which included multiple assessment years on the same day. 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No.2133/Del/2023 titled as “Ram Narayan Bajaj Vs. DCIT in order dated 31.01.2025 has held as under: “9. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 2873/Del/2022 has held as under: “6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. For the purpose of examining the legality or otherwise of the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act and the consequential assessment proceedings, we shall advert to approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act. The approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act dated 17-12- 2019/18-12-2019 granted by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range 8, New Delhi to DCIT Central Circle, 32, New Delhi is reproduced as under: ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 15 7. On a perusal of the approval dated 17/18-12-2019 addressed by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-8, New Delhi to the AO, it emerges that the Addl. CIT, has not uttered a single word on the subject matter of additions. The approval is in the nature of Performa approval; the approval granted is nothing but mechanical one and the approving authority has exercised symbolic powers vested under s. 153D of the Act. Apart from the same, a single approval has been granted for seven Assessment Years in total. 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) held as under:- “11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for \"each assessment year\" referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 153A of the Act. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294] which captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more significantly, the import of the phrase- \"each assessment year\" used in the language of Section 153D of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as under:- \"13. It was held therein that if an approval has been granted by the Approving Authority in a mechanical manner without application of mind then the very purpose of obtaining approval under Section 153D of the Act and mandate of the enactment by the legislature will be defeated. For granting approval under Section 153D of the Act, the Approving Authority shall have to apply independent mind to the material on record for \"each assessment year\" in respect of \"each assessee\" separately. The words 'each assessment year' used in Section 153D and 153A have been ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 16 considered to hold that effective and proper meaning has to be given so that underlying legislative intent as per scheme of assessment of Section 153A to 153D is fulfilled. It was held that the \"approval\" as contemplated under 153D of the Act, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing the assessment. The approval, thus, cannot be a mere formality and, in any case, cannot be a mechanical exercise of power. *** 19. The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to \"each assessment year\" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A.\" [Emphasis supplied] 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power to accord approval mechanically, inasmuch as, it was humanly impossible for the said authority to have perused and appraised the records of 85 cases in a single day. It was explicitly held that the authority granting approval has to apply its mind for \"each assessment year\" for \"each assessee\" separately. ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 17 13. Reliance can also be placed upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co. [2023 SCC OnLine Ori 992] to understand the exposition of law on the issue at hand. Paragraph no.22 of the said decision reads as under:- \"22. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee there is not even a token mention of the draft orders having been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re- verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 need not be given, there has to be some indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. As explained in the above cases, the mere repeating of the words of the statute, or mere \"rubber stamping\" of the letter seeking sanction by using similar words like \"seen\" or \"approved\" will not satisfy the requirement of the law. This is where the Technical Manual of Office Procedure becomes important. Although, it was in the context of section 158BG of the Act, it would equally apply to section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 18 (i) the Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order \"well in time\". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving him sufficient time to apply his mind ; (ii) the final approval must be in writing ; (iii) the fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the body of the assessment order.\" [Emphasis supplied] 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee apprised this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case of Serajuddin (supra), came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in SLP (C) Diary no. 44989/2023. 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 19 \"10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D of the Act which is enclosed at page 36 of the paper book of the assessee. The said letter clearly states This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for seven assessment years in the case of the assessee and for seven assessment years in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyar. It is also pertinent in this regard to refer to pages 68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This fact is not in dispute before ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 20 us. Of these 43 cases, as evident from page 36 of the paper book which contains the approval u/s 153D, 14 cases pertained to the assessee herein and Smt. Neetu Nayyar. The remaining cases may belong to some other assessees, which information is not available before us. In any event, whether it is humanly possible for an approving authority like ld. Addl. CIT to grant judicious approval u/s 153D of the Act for 43 cases on a single day is the subject matter of dispute before us. Further, section 153D provides that approval has to be granted for each of the assessment year whereas, in the instant case, the ld. Addl. CIT has granted a single approval for all assessment years put together.\" 17. Notably, the order of approval dated 30.12.2020 which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the assessee clearly signifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 21 encapsulated in the order extracted above.” 9. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) had an occasion to examine substantial question of law on the propriety of approval granted under s. 153D of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court made wide ranging observations towards the manner and legality of approval under s. 153D of the Act by observing that the approval under s. 153D of the Act being mandatory, while elaborate reasons need not be given, there has to be some indication that approving authority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of law. The approving authority is expected to indicate his thought process while granting approval, held that it is not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justifiable. Where the Court finds that the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. The Hon’ble High Court inter-alia observed that there is no even a token mention that draft order has been perused by the Ld. Addl. CIT. The approval letter simply grants approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of approving authority having to indicate what thought process involved leading to the aforementioned approval has not been provided. As explained, the mere repeating of words of the Statue or mere rubber stamping of the communication seeking sanction by using similar words like ‘approval’ will not, by itself, meet the requirement of law. The Hon’ble Court made reference to manual issued by the CBDT in the context of erstwhile section ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 22 158BG of the Act and observed that such manual serves as a guideline to the AOs. Since it was issued by CBDT, the powers of issuing such guidelines can be traced to section 119 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also held that non-compliance of requirement of section 153D of the Act is not a mere procedural irregularity and lapse committed by Revenue may vitiate the assessment order. The SLP filed against the aforesaid judgment in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata was dismissed as reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC). 10. The ratio of judgement delivered in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata; PCIT vs Anuj Bansal; PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar; and PCIT vs Subhash Dabas (supra) has held in chorus that the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act, if granted mechanically, will vitiate the assessment order itself. 10. In view of above material facts and the judicial view of the Coordinate Bench as per law of precedent, the assessment order on ground of erroneous approval accorded under section 153D of the Act deserves to be quashed and is set aside. Therefore, ground no. 8.1 is allowed.” 14. In view of aforesaid material facts, circumstances and the judicial view of the Co-ordinate Bench as per law of precedents, the assessment order on ground of erroneous approval accorded under section 153D of the Act deserves to be quashed and is set ITA Nos.1014 & 1015/Del/2021 23 aside. Therefore, additional ground of appeal; no.7(1) & (ii) are allowed.” All other grounds of appeal are left open. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/06/2025 Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to - 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "