SMT. PEU VEER,NOIDA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 , GURGAON

ITA 3369/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37072 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJEET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR; ADITYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Gift; Search and seizure; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 250; 143(1); 132; 153A; 13; 69A

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 (Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16 & 2019-20 and 2019-20) Sl. No ITA/CO No(s) Asst. Year(s) Appeal(s) by Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 3367/Del/2024 2013-14 Smt. Peu Veer A-109, Sector-65 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301 PAN : AGVPD6908M DCIT Central Circle –2 Gurgaon 2. 3368/Del/2024 2014-15 -do- -do- 3. 3369/Del/2024 2015-16 -do- -do- 4. 3370/Del/2024 2019-20 -do- -do- 5. 3380/Del/2024 2019-20 Virender Pal Singh Mainee M-14, Ground Floor Greater Kailash, Part-1 New Delhi-110048 PAN-AMGPM9259F -do- 6. 3381/Del/2024 2019-20 Bhupinder Kaur M-14, Ground Floor Greater Kailash Part-1 New Delhi-110048 PAN-AAJPK9763B -do- Assessee by Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A., Shri Aditya Kumar, C.A. Ms. Depali Agarwal, C.A., Shri Ankur Agarwal, C.A. Ms. Muskan Goel, A.R. Revenue by Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeals arise from the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [CIT(A)] passed under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] emanating from respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer [AO] tabulated hereunder: ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 2 Sr. Nos. ITA Nos. CIT(A) Order dated Assessment Order dated Remarks 1. 3367/Del/2024 (AY 2013-14) CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon order dated 28.06.2024 24.06.2021 Assessment Order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 3368/Del/2024 (Ay 2014-15) -do- 29.06.2021 -do- 3. 3369/Del/2024 (AY 2015-16) -do- 22.06.2021 -do- 4. 3370/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20) -do- -do- Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. 3380/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20) -do- 24.06.2021 -do- 6. 3381/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20) -do- 19.06.2021 -do- 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the issues involved for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 and 2019-20 are broadly common, interlinked and arising from the search action on the assessee and other group concerns covering the assessee. Hence, all these cases have been heard together and accordingly adjudicated by this common order. ITA Nos.3367 to 3369/Del/2024 [AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16] [Smt. Peu Veer] 3. It was stated on behalf of the captioned assessee at the outset that the assessment for AYs 2013-14 to AY 2015-16 in question for captioned assessee were not pending and stood concluded either under s. 143(1) or under s. 143(3) at the time of initiation of search on 19.11.2018 and thus remained unabated. Consequently, the legal framework for assessment of total income under s. 153A is narrow and is contingent upon the discovery of undisclosed income backed by incriminating material found in the course of search from the respective assessee. 4. As per grounds of appeal, the captioned assessee has challenged respective first appellate orders arising from the respective assessment orders broadly on following contours; ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 3 (A) Legal objection on maintainability of additions carried out in the assessment order passed under s. 153A of the Act unconnected to any incriminating material discovered in the course of search; (B) Approval accorded by the competent authority i.e. Addl. CIT in the instant assessment orders do not meet the pre-requisites contemplated under s.153D of the Act and hence the assessment framed under s. 153A based on such non est approval is a nullity at the threshold.. (C) The impugned additions and disallowances are a mere ipse dixit of the AO /CIT(A) and not objectively justifiable even on merits; such additions thus lacks legal and factual foundations 5. Briefly stated, the captioned assessee derives income from varied sources such as salary, income from house property, LTCG and income from other sources. The assessee was covered in a search and seizure operation under s. 132 on 19.11.2018 at various premises. Consequent upon search, notices under s. 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee for respective AYs under appeal. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed return of income under s. 153A of the Act for assessment years concerned. The assessments were framed under s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act for unabated AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 in question. While framing search assessments noted above, the AO inter alia made certain additions of INR 24,20,000/- under s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained gifts received from relatives. Similar additions were made in respect of other assessment years. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) for different AYs seeking to challenge the additions made on various counts. The assessee firstly alleged that the additions made by the AO are outside the ambit of legal framework inasmuch as no incriminating material was shown to be found during the course of search initiated against the respective assessee under s. 132 of the Act on 19.11.2018 and all such assessments stood concluded and remained unabated at the time of initiation of search. The assessee has also simultaneously challenged the legitimacy of approval granted by the Competent Authority i.e. Addl.CIT, Central Range, Gurugram alleging that such approval has been granted mechanically in a ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 4 ritualistic manner without application of mind. The Assessee has also challenged the propriety of additions on merits. 6.1. In support of the legal and factual contentions, the assessee filed detailed submissions and placed documentary evidences along with case laws before CIT(A). 6.2 The CIT(A) however neither found any merit in the contention raised on various jurisdictional and legal points nor towards additions on merits having regard to the documentary evidences. The legal objection of the assessee questioning scope and legality of additions under s. 153A being outside the legal framework was discarded. Likewise, objections raised on a common approval granted under s. 153D alleging such approval to be an omnibus approval without application of mind to the draft assessment order was also found to be without any merit. The CIT(A) did not find any substance in the contentions raised on the merits of the additions either. The CIT(A) thus addressed all the substantive issues against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted at the outset that the respective first appellate orders and the assessment orders have been passed based on complete misconception of scheme of search assessment under s. 153A. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the approval of the Addl. CIT to the draft assessment order under s. 153D do not carry any rational probative value being accorded mechanically and flippantly. On merits of the additions, the Ld. Counsel yet again contended that there was no credible material to impeach the transactions reported. The inferences drawn against the assessee are contrary to material placed on record and thus without legal foundation. Third party evidences have been rejected arbitrarily without any attempt to traverse the facts placed before the AO. The Ld. Counsel thus made wide ranging submissions to support the legal objections taken on maintainability of additions under s. 153A and touching the jurisdictional aspects in such group of concluded and unabated assessments. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out multiple defects in the action of the Addl. CIT to demonstrate that the approval accorded under s. 153D suffers from the vice of non application of mind in a gross manner. The Ld. Counsel thus contended that approval under s. 153D is ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 5 not an empty legal formality but seeks to place enormous statutory responsibility on the authority to ensure fair play and a just and proper assessment by the AO. The casual exercise of powers under s. 153D has actually frustrated the very purpose of such valuable safeguard and reduced the whole exercise to an empty formality. It was contended that no person with ordinary prudence and instructed in law could grant approval under s. 153D to the loopsided and legally untenable assessment orders under challenge. The Ld. Counsel referred to large number of judicial pronouncements to seek cancellation of respective assessment orders so passed on the strength of such sterile & hollow approvals. We shall deal with the various facets of the arguments at appropriate place in succeeding paragraphs while dealing with the respective issues. 9. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR appearing for the Revenue strongly relied upon the first appellate order and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with all the objections threadbare and affirmed the action of the AO on legally sound basis. Hence, no interference therewith is called for. We shall deal with the averments made by the Ld.CIT DR while dealing with the respective issues in succeeding paragraphs. 10. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and perused the respective first appellate orders passed for AYs 2013-14 to AY 2015-16 as well as the respective assessment orders. The material referred to and relied upon by both sides has been perused in accordance with Rule 18(6) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Similarly, the case laws cited in the course of hearing has been given due weight having regard to the context of the case. 11. To begin with, we shall address ourselves with preliminary objections of legal nature touching the jurisdictional aspects as raised on behalf of the assessee. 11.1 The broad contours of the appeals of the assessee hinges around following pertinent legal issues emanating in these appeals of the assessee: (a) Whether the assessee was justified in making the additions dehors incriminating material found in the course of search from the premises of the assessee in such unabated and concluded assessments and whether while making ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 6 assessment under s. 153A of the Act, the Revenue is entitled to interfere with already concluded (and not abated) assessments passed earlier either under s. 143(1) or under s. 143(3) of the Act and not pending at the time of search in the absence of any incriminating documents unearthed as a result of search? (b) Whether such purported approvals of the Addl. CIT is to be regarded as mechanical and perfunctory and without application of mind having regard to the functions entrusted under s. 153D of the Act. 12. The first and foremost legal objection concerns propriety of additions dehors incriminating material found in the course of search from the premises of the assessee in concluded assessment. 12.1. It is the case of the assessee that the assessment for captioned AYs 2013-14 to AY 2015-16 are liable to be challenged on three broad points:- (i) The addition made by the AO in the assessment framed under s. 153A unconnected to any incriminating material found in the course of search per se as evident from the respective assessment orders and consequent first appellate orders. The assessments under s. 153A have been framed based on re-appreciation & evaluation of Bank entries and Gift Deeds found which cannot per se be equated with incriminating material found in the course of search of assessee per se. The law in this regard is well settled in respect of unabated assessments at the time of search. Hence, such additions are unsustainable under s. 153A. As stated, the assessment for such years stood concluded and AY 2013-14 to AY 2015-16 were not pending for assessment under normal provisions at the time of search. (ii) The additions to be made under s. 153A in unabated assessments are squarely dependent upon the discovery of incriminating documents found in the course of search from the premises of the assessee as held in landmark judgment in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxman.com 399 (SC) followed by many other judgements delivered later by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including PCIT vs. King Buildcon (P) Ltd. 154 taxamnn.com 189(SC). Consequently, the scope of assessment under s. 153A is restricted to the incriminating material found in the course of search in the case of the assessee in such unabated assessments. ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 7 (iii) The re-appreciation and a fresh ascertainment of nature of bank entries received by way of gift without any discovery of incriminating material is not permissible for assessment under s. 153A in unabated cases. The additions made in the proceedings under s. 153A based on perceived inadequacy of financial capacity of donors etc. is thus not permissible in unabated cases. The additions made under s. 153A of the Act are bad in law on this score too. (iv) On merits, the assessee contends that gifts have been received from blood relatives and backed by Gift Deeds. Such gifts giving rise to the additions under s. 69A is without any factual foundation. It is thus the case of the assessee that additions made by the AO was wrongly endorsed by the CIT(A) and such action cannot be countenanced in law both on the grounds of jurisdiction available to the AO as well as on merits. The assessee thus seeks reversal of the additions made by the AO. 12.2. On facts, it is the case of the assessee that the so-called incriminating material referred in the assessment order are in the shape of purported financial profiling of relatives who have given impugned gifts. The AO proceeded against assessee based on suspicion towards gifting capacity of the close relatives. Such inconclusive and rebuttable view forms the basis for drawing adverse interference towards alleged unexplained gifts in unabated assessments. The CIT(A) while confirming the additions on merits was clearly guided by so-called absence of necessary documentary evidences. No independent enquiry was carried out. While making the additions by the AO and upholding such additions by the CIT(A), no reference whatsoever to the material gathered in the course of search from the premises of the assessee have been shown. 13. On nuanced perusal of the assessment orders and the respective first appellate orders, it is observed that there does not appear to be any reference to any incriminating material found in the course of search of the assessee per se. The alleged incriminating material referred are primarily in the nature of Financial capacity of donor evaluated subsequent to search/survey proceedings. Guided by the schematic interpretation of s. 153A rendered in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra), we find force in the legal plea placed on behalf of the assessee. ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 8 Hence, in the absence of any incriminating material in an unabated assessment, additions/ disallowances made by the AO in all captioned appeals requires to be quashed. 14. We now advert to the other legal challenge vociferously raised on behalf of the assessee towards propriety of approval under s. 153D to the respective draft assessment orders placed before him by the AO. 14.1 The approval memo under s. 153D has been assailed on behalf the assessee. It would thus be in fitness to extract the copy of approval for ready reference. ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 9 14.2 With reference to the approval memo extracted above, it is the contention on behalf of the assessee that the combined approval granted for various AYs under s. 153D is plagued with substantive infirmities revealing gross non-application of mind and the assessment orders have been granted an omnibus approval on dotted line in a cursory manner. The broad counters of the discrepancies alleged on behalf of the assessee are: (a) The AO forwarded the draft assessment orders for various AYs under appeal to the Addl.CIT vide letter dated 10.05.2021 purportedly along with the assessment records to seek approval under s. 153D of the Act. The approval sought was accorded in complex search cases of multiple years of the assessee on 10.05.2021. The so-called approvals were given in a consolidated manner to the assessment orders spanning over AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 on the same day. Significantly, the Addl. CIT recorded considering the facts as submitted that (a) proper opportunities of being heard was provided to the assessee by the AO; (b) All the issues appearing from the material on record were duly examined (naturally by the AO) and (c) relevant copies of seized documents were verified before passing the draft assessment order. The Ld. Counsel contends that on a bare reading of phraseology of para 2 of the approval memo noted above, it would be manifest that combined and consolidated approval has been accorded on the same day solely based on the submissions and assurances from the AO that the pre-requisites have been met while preparing draft assessment orders. Delving deeper, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee yet again adverted to para 2 part 3 of the approval memo dated 10.05.2021 ( extracted above) to assert that the Addl. CIT clearly proceeded to accord approval under s. 153D on the presumption that relevant copy of seized documents were verified by the AO before passing respective draft assessment orders. Apparently, riding on such assurances from the AO, the combined approvals have been merrily accorded. The Addl. CIT thus barely acted on the assurance from the AO towards existence of basic requirement of passing a fair and balanced assessment order mandated in law. Such approvals, which do not even remotely indicate independent application of mind, if endorsed would defeat the very purpose of the statutory enactment of s. 153D of the Act meant to act as ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 10 valuable safeguard against any capricious or unjust or onerous liability on tax payers by the arbitrary exercise of powers of the AO. Evidently, the Addl. CIT himself has not exerted in any manner but rather ascribed to the acts and deeds of the AO as gospel truth. The approval is thus clearly militates against the aim and object of insertion of s. 153D of the Act and is in the league of being mechanical and ritualistic approval rendering it expropriatory at the threshold. 14.3 The assessee thus rightly contends that it is a gross case of an implied self confession of the Addl. CIT towards complete dependence on the process of assessment carried out by AO rendering it a ‘technical approval’ which in itself is fatal without anything more. This apart, substantive defects in the assessment orders remained unnoticed by the Additional CIT. While the gifts received from blood relatives have been impugned, the additions under s. 69A has been made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery/bullion. Furthermore, the AO observed in the Assessment order that amount of Gifts reed has not been recorded in the books which is also factually incorrect and contrary to his own assertions of receipt of gift through Bank entries in the preceding paras of the assessment orders. Such glaring mistakes went unnoticed by Addl.CIT. Impliedly, the Addl. CIT acted mechanically and accorded approval casually rendering such approval non-est. 15. The Ld.CIT DR appearing for revenue has however strongly defends the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act and submits that as long as the statutory approval has been granted, a presumption would arise that all incidental acts have been performed properly and that due process of law has been followed and with proper application of mind. 16. The legal objection of transgression of requirements of approval under s. 153D is in question which has the effect on the very substratum of the various assessment orders which are subject matter of captioned appeals. 16.1 For passing assessment orders in search cases, the Assessing Officer is inter alia governed by the requirement of prior approval under Section 153D of the Act. Hence, the AO should complete the assessment proceedings and prepare a draft assessment order which needs to be placed before the approving authority i.e. Joint/Addl. Commissioner (designated authority giving approval to search ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 11 assessment under Sect ion 153D of the Act) for his perusal and prior approval. In view of the definitive judicial consensus available on the expectations from Competent Authority, such Competent Authority is expected to objectively evaluate such draft assessment order as far as possible, with due application of mind on various issues contained in such order so as to derive his/ her diligent satisfaction that the proposed action of AO is in conformity with subsisting law and is also in accord with underlying factual matrix. The requirement of law to grant approval is consistently held to be not a mere formality or a symbolic act but a mandatory requirement. The AO is obligated is pass the assessment order exactly, as per approval / directions of the designated authority. It is not open to the AO to modify the assessment order without the knowledge and concurrence of the designated authority. 16.2 Pertinently, it may be relevant to take note of host of judicial precedents governing the field wherein the Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal have uniformly struck a discordant note on mechanical and perfunctory approval in the context of provisions of section 153D of the Act. Such routine approvals have resulted in invalidation of adjustments made in the assessment order. • ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa)- SLP against this order dismissed reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118(SC). • PCIT vs Anuj Bansal 466 ITR 251(Del.) • PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 63 taxmann.com 9 (del.); 467 ITR 186 • PCIT vs MDLR Hotels(P)Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.) • PCT vs. Sapna Gupta(2023) 147 taxmann.com 288(All.) • PCIT vs. Siddarth Gupta (2023) 450 ITR 534 (All.) • PCIT vs. Subodh Agarwal (2023) 149 taxmann.com 373(All.) • Shreelekha Damani vs DCIT [ITA No.4061/Mum/2012] (Bom.High Court) ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 12 • Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & ors. (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)[in the context of s. 157 of the Act] • M3M India Holdings vs DCIT [2019] 71 ITR (Trib.) 451 (Del.) • Vrushali Sanjay Shinde vs DCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 324 (Mum.- Trib.) • Sanjay Duggal vs ACIT [ITA No.1813/Del/2019] order dated, 19.01.2021 • PCIT vs Subhash Dabas (ITA No.243/2023) order dated 17.05.2024 • Daze Construction Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA Nos.594 to 598/Del/2023) order dated 30.09.2024 • Veena Singh vs ACIT (ITA No.294/Del/2022 for AY 2016-17) order dated 24.04.2024 • PCIT vs Tirupati Buildings & Officers Pvt.Ltd. (ITA No.447/2024) order dated 20.08.2024 16.3 It is axiomatic from the plain reading of approval memo that the Addl. CIT is in complete dark on facts while being called upon to grant his clearance to the draft assessment orders. 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. The solemn object of entrusting the duty of Approval of assessment in search cases is that the Additional/ Joint CIT concerned, 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 cast on superior authority acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 13 against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO. The approval granted under section 153D of the Act enjoins due application of mind and if the same is subjected to judicial scrutiny, it should stand for itself and should be self- defending. Long line of judicial precedents which provides guidance in applying the law has been quoted in the preceding para. The courts have repeatedly deprecated the pernicious practice of granting approvals by the supervisory authorities in a nonchalant manner. 16.4 At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that in the instant case, the approving authority has granted a mere 'technical approval' by his own express admission in departure to a substantive approval expected in law. Curiously, the Addl.CIT has recorded that he has granted approval on the basis of presentation of the AO before Addl.CIT that proper opportunity has been provided to the Assessee; all the issues have been examined by him i.e. the AO and relevant copies of seized documents have been verified by him i.e. the AO before passing the draft order. The Addl. CIT thus effectively claimed that he has not pursued the relevant underlying material but proceeded on dotted line. Such an act cannot be regarded as effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature. As discernible from the combined approval memo, the sanctioning authority (Addl. CIT) has, in fact, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Addl. CIT, was supposed to supervise as per the scheme of the Act. Manifestly, the Addl. CIT, without any consideration of factual and legal position in proposed additions and without ensuring the availability of incriminating material collected in search etc. has buckled under statutory compulsion and proceeded to grant a symbolic approval to meet the statutory requirement. This approach of the Addl. CIT has ipso facto rendered the impugned approval to be a mere ritual or an empty formality to meet the statutory requirement and is thus incapable of being sustainable in law. 16.5. The CIT(A) in para 8.2.2 to 8.2.6 of first appellate order has brushed aside the legal objection summarily merely on an inept & indifferent premise that the assessment order makes mention of the approval from Addl. CIT under 153D of the Act and such powers are in the nature of administrative powers and a purely internal matter. The cryptic conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) is bereft of any ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 14 plausible reasons whatsoever and thus cannot be reckoned to be a judicial finding on the point. The observations so made runs contrary to position of law expounded in the judicial precedents and hence not tenable in law. 17. In the light of foregoing discussions, we are unhesitatingly disposed to hold that the integrity and propriety of impugned assessments under captioned appeals based on such combined approval memo under s. 153D in question cannot be countenanced in law. 18. In view of legal objection answered in favour of the Assessee on maintainability of additions on touchstone if s. 153A and s. 153D of the Act, the aspects of other objections on jurisdiction such as absence of DIN etc. or aspects of merits of additions does not call for separate adjudication. 19. In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No.3367 to 3369/Del/2024 [AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16] are allowed. ITA Nos.3370/Del/2024[ Smt. Peu Veer], 3380/Del/2024 [Virender Pal Singh] & 3381/Del/2024 [Bhupinder Kaur] (Assessment Year 2019-20) 20. One of the grounds in captioned appeals raises challenge to validity of approval under s. 153D similar to other appeals discussed in preceding paras. 21. The approval memo under s. 153D in captioned appeals are identically worded to that of other group cases. The approval memo under s. 153D being common and combined and similarly worded, the delineations noted above in respect of earlier years shall apply mutatis mutandis. As noted in para 14 to para 17 (supra), the Addl.CIT is found to have granted approval under s. 153D based on assurance from AO seeking approval that draft assessment orders have been framed after giving opportunity and due examinations and verifications have been carried out. Guided by such submissions of the AO, the Additional CIT has accorded approval without showing his own involvement and application of mind to facts emanating and law involved. The approval so accorded was thus held to be in the nature of a ‘technical approval’ in symbolic exercise of powers under s. 153D in para 14 to para 17 (supra). In sync with the delineations made on approval without meeting pre-requisites of application of mind, the consequential assessment orders ITA Nos.3367 to 3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 Page | 15 based on such repugnant approval under s. 153D are bad in law and thus stands quashed. In this view of the matter, the other legal and factual aspects do not call for separate adjudication. 22. The appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.3370/Del/2024 & 3380 to 3381/Del/2024 [AY 2019-20] are thus allowed. 23. In the combined result, all the captioned appeals of the captioned assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR ) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "