SMT. USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 480/DEL/2015

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by both the assessee, Smt. Usha Sharma, and the Department of Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17/10/2014 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention revolved around the approval granted under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, which was challenged by the assessee as being mechanical and arbitrary, lacking any substantive application of mind. The Tribunal examined the procedural compliance with section 153D, particularly focusing on whether the approval was granted with due diligence and consideration for each assessment year and assessee involved. The Tribunal's decision was heavily influenced by precedents and judicial interpretations emphasizing the necessity of a thoughtful and independent application of mind in granting such approvals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 42130 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, PCIT v. Sapna Gupta, Asst. CIT v. Serajuddin and Co., Anuj Bansal vs. PCIT, PCIT vs Subhash Dabas
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1861
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Search and seizure; Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 43

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 480/Del/2015 (A.Y 2012-13) Smt. Usha Sharma 19, Poorvi Marg, 3rd Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi PAN No:AODPS1740L Vs. DCIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 466/Del/2015 (A.Y 2012-13) DCIT Central Circle-20 New Delhi Vs. Smt. Usha Sharma 19, Poorvi Marg, 3rd Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi PAN No:AODPS1740L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S. Both the Department of Revenue and the Assessee have assailed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17/10/2024 in the respective Appeals for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT 2. The Assessee in her Appeal, filed following additional grounds of appeal which reproduced as under: - “Additional Ground No. 1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case the approval accorded under section 153D of the Act (if any) is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without there being any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed.\" 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment order has been passed for Assessment Year 2012-13 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1861 (‘Act’ for short) pursuant to a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 6,70,95,025/- as against declared income of Rs. 42,11,890/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/03/2014, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 17/10/2014, deleted certain additions by sustaining the some of the additions. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the Department as well as the Assessee have filed respective Appeals. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on the additional Grounds of Assessee’s Appeal submitted that the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act is a mechanical and arbitrary approval without their being any application of mind and also without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions of the Act as such the assessment so framed is null and void. The Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that approval issued u/s 153D of the Act does not 3 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT mention any seized document having been perused and a single approval has been granted in case of three Assessee’s containing 21 Assessment Years. The Ld. Senior Counsel relying on the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar reported in 163 taxmann.com9 dated 15/05/2024 in ITA No. 285/2024 (CMP No. 28994/2024) and other Judicial pronouncements, sought for allowing the Additional Grounds of Appeal and prayed for quashing the assessment order. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the draft assessment order has been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while according approval u/s 153D of the Act, which was made available in the file on 28/03/2014 and the approval has been granted on 30/03/2014 and there is no absence of application of mind, thus sought for dismissal of the Additional Grounds of Appeal. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and also verified, material available on record and the case laws cited. The legal objection of transgression of requirement of approval under s. 153D of the Act is in question which has the effect on the very substratum of the assessment and consequential appellate proceedings. 7. For the purpose of deciding the issue of legality of approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act and the consequential assessment proceedings, we shall straightway advert to the approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act. The approval 4 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT under s. 153D of the Act dated 30/03/2014 granted by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi addressed to DCIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi is reproduced hereunder:- 8. On a perusal of the approval dated 30/03/2014 addressed by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi to the AO, it emerges that the Addl. CIT, has not uttered a word on the subject matter of additions. The approval is in the nature of Performa approval; the approval granted smacks of mechanical or perfunctory approval in a symbolic exercise of powers vested under s. 153D of 5 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT the Act. Apart from the same, a single approval has been granted for three Assessees comprising out of 21 Assessment Years in total. 9. 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 sub-section (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 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. 6 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT 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. 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 7 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT 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, (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] 8 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT 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:- \"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 9 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT 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 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 encapsulated in the order extracted above.” 10. Significantly, 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 Orissa High Court made wide ranging observations towards the manner and 10 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT legality of approval under s. 153D of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court inter-alia observed 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 justiciable. 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 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 11 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT against the aforesaid judgement in the case of ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata was dismissed as reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC). 11. 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. 12. As noted in the instant case, In the first para of the approval memo, it is mentioned that draft assessment order dated 28/03/2014 has been received for approval and in the second para of the approval memo, it was stated that the draft assessment orders has been approved. Such mechanical approval cannot be sustainable in law in the light of judicial dicta available. The approval memo is totally silent on the issues involved and has granted omnibus approval without any thoughtful process being discernible. A single approval u/s 153D has been accorded in respect of three different Assessees comprising out of 21 Assessment Years and there is no other material to show involvement of the superior authority in the course of assessment. Applying the ratio of judgements delivered as noted above, the assessment order based on ritualistic approval stands vitiated and thus quashed by allowing additional Grounds of appeal of the Assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 480/Del/2015 is allowed. 12 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT 14. Since, we have quashed the Assessment Order on the ground of erroneous approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act by allowing the Additional Ground, we do not consider it necessary to address on other legal and factual contentions raised in the other grounds of Appeal of the Assessee. 15. Further, since we have quashed the impugned assessment order on the ground of erroneous approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act, the Appeal filed by the Revenue has become in-fructuous. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 466/Del/2015 is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 22nd January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22/01/2025 R.N, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 13 ITA Nos. 480 & 466/Del/2015 Usha Sharma Vs. DCIT "