SRI KAMAL DEO SHARMA,RANCHI V. DCIT,C.C.-1, RANCHI

ITSSA 37/RAN/2019

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Smt. Tripta Sharma and Shri Kamal Deo Sharma against the orders of the CIT(A), Patna, which were related to the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16. The primary legal issue was the challenge to the validity of the assessment orders under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, following a search operation conducted on the assessee's group. The Tribunal recalled the appeals to adjudicate on additional legal grounds that were previously unaddressed, which contested the mechanical nature of the approvals for the assessments. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents and judicial interpretations that emphasized the need for a substantive application of mind by the approving authority under Section 153D.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717159 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2019
• Other Referred Cases: MIs Rajat Minerals Pvt Ltd & Others, Rajat Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, ACIT Vs Serajuddin & co.
• Laws Referred To: Section 153D of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Assessment record
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

"P a g e 1 | 27 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 27 to 33/Ran/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2015-16) Smt. Tripta Sharma, C/o-Shri S.K. Poddar, Flat No. 501, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AHVPS 5982 R Vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue IT(SS)A Nos. 34 to 40/Ran/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2015-16) Shri Kamal Deo Sharma, C/o-Shri S.K. Poddar, Flat No. 501, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) PAN No. ALFPS 8806 E Vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of hearing 19/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/08/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee(s) against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna all dated 26/12/2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16 respectively. As all the issues in these appeals of the assessees relate to the common issues, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajat Datta, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 2 | 27 3. At the outset, the ld. AR stated that these appeals were originally heard on 27/089/2019 and disposed off vide order dated 18/11/2019. However, subsequently, Misc. applications were filed by the assessee contesting that the additional legal grounds filed by the assessee on 26/08/2019 was not adjudicated upon. Further the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the identical additional legal ground which was raised at the time of original disposal of the appeal and on the basis of which, the Misc. application filed by the assessee was allowed vide order dated 13/06/2025 and the appeal was recalled to that extent. The identical additional legal ground raised by the assessee for all the impugned years challenges the validity or the approval under Section 153D of the Act. 4. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that a search was conducted in the Padam Kumar Jain Group at Ranchi and other places on 03/07/2014. Consequential searches have also been carried out at the offices of the assessee and his group. It was a submission that subsequently in the course of assessment, a Tax Evasion Petition was received by the Assessing Officer on 21/11/2016. The Assessing Officer had issued a detailed show cause notice to the assessee in respect of Tax Evasion Petition on 21/11/2016. The same was served on the Chartered Accountant of the assessee on 22/11/2016 wherein the assessee was directed to comply with the show cause notice by 28/11/2016 at 11.30 AM. It was a submission that on 28/11/2016, the assessee complied, however, the compliance was at 4.50 PM. The compliance of the assessee was not considered in so far as it Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 3 | 27 was informed to the assessee that the assessment order has already been passed. The ld. Authorised Representative has filed a written submissions which reads as follows: \"1. The above captioned appeals of the assessee have been recalled vide ITAT order dated 13/06/2025 in MA 24 - 37/Ran/2020 copy of which is attached herewith at Page 03-05. 2. That the appeals have been recalled to the extent that the additional legal ground filed by the assessee on 26/08/2019 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal has not been adjudicated upon. A copy of the additional legal ground raised by the appellant in case of Smt. Tripta Sharma is attached herewith at Page 06 and in case of Sri Kamal Deo Sharma is attached herewith at Page 07. 3. That vide the said legal grounds we have challenged the validity of the assessment order which now stands covered by the decision of this Hon'ble Bench in the case of MIs Rajat Minerals Pvt Ltd & Others (Assessee's group companies) in IT(SS)A No.41- 54/Ran/2019 dated 20/01/2020 copy of which is attached herewith at Page 72 - 89. 4. That the certified copy of the order sheet in case of Smt Tripta Sharma for all the impugned years is attached herewith at Page 08 - 42 and the certified copy of the order sheet in case of Sri Kamal Deo Sharma for all the impugned years is attached herewith at Page 43 - 70. 5. That the foremost legal issue challenging the validity of the assessment order is that the detailed questionnaire in as many as 28 cases of the assessee group was issued on 21/11/2016 seeking compliance on 28/11/2016 at 11:30am, however the compliance in all the cases was made on the very same date i.e. 28/11/2016 but at around 4:30 pm wherein we were informed that the order of assessment has already been passed. The points of consideration for the same are as follows:-  The AO ought to have given a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to make compliance. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 4 | 27  The action of the Ld AO for not even waiting till the end of date of compliance and stating that the order of assessment has been passed in as many as 28 cases is unjustified.  The contention of the revenue department that the draft assessment orders were sent to JCIT for approval and approval has been accorded and the orders have been passed making hefty additions in as many as 28 cases within a span of 5 hours i.e. 11:30am time of compliance and 4:30pm when the actual compliance was made is unreasonable unrealistic and untenable.  The copy of the letter forwarding the files from the office of AO to the office of Ld JCIT for approval is attached herewith at Page 71 which shows that vide a common letter for all 28 cases, only the draft assessment order was sent for approval. No assessment records were sent along with the draft order for application of mind by the approving authority.  The action of Ld JCIT in terms of section 153D in granting approval is mechanical and as such bad in law. The entire action of the Ld AO and JCIT for completing these impugned assessment proceedings is erroneous and against the provisions of law.  That the orders of assessment said to have been passed on 28/11/2016 was only received through speed post by the assessee on 14/12/2016 which depicts that the same was dispatched sometime in the 2ndweek of December'2016 i.e. almost after 10-12 days of passing of the order. When the AO was in such a hurt to pass the assessment order and could not even wait till the end of date of compliance, why was the order dispatched so belatedly.  The AO time and again has mentioned in the order of assessment that the assessee did not even file the ITR, Audit report copy is false and incorrect to the extent that at Page 3 of the assessment order, wherein the copy of our initial compliance is reproduced, details of the ITR, audit report etc has been duly mentioned as filed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 5 | 27 6. That the Hon'ble Tribunal taking cognizance of all our above legal issues, discussed in detail in its order dated 20/01/2020 has quashed the orders of assessment, and since the facts being identically parallel in case of the assessee, we submit that the order of assessment in all these 14 cases be annulled and quashed.\" It was a submission that the ordersheet entries in one of the cases which is identical to all other cases is at pages 8 to 12 of the paper book which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 6 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 7 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 8 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 9 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 10 | 27 It was a submission that necessary ordersheet entries which needs consideration in these impugned appeals is from 21/11/2016 to 28/11/2016. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer has received Tax Evasion Petition on 21/11/2016, show cause notice has been prepared on 21/11/2016, time has been provided to the assessee for compliance till 28/11/2016 at 11.30 AM. However, the assessee complied on 28/11/2016 at 4.50 PM i.e. after a delay of 5 1/2 hours. It was a submission that on 28/11/2016 after 11.30 AM, as per the Assessing Officer and the ordersheet recordings, the assessee had not complied on 28/11/2016 till 11.30 AM. It was a further submission of ld. AR that the draft assessment orders could have been prepared only after 11.30 AM in respect of 28 cases in the said group, therefore, in all these 28 cases, draft assessment orders have been prepared after 11.30 AM. These draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi on 28/11/2016. Approvals were received from the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi on 28/11/2016 in all the 28 cases and the final assessment orders have been prepared on 28/11/2016 and issued. This is as per the ordersheet records. It was a submission that, however, the assessment orders have been served on the assessee only on 14/12/2016 through speed post. It was a submission that these assessment orders are invalid in so far as the approvals granted by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi is without application of mind. The ld. AR drew our attention to page No. 71 of the paper book which is the copy of the letter of the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 11 | 27 Officer to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi dated 28/11/2016 which reads as follows: It was a submission that the approval from the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi is stereo typed except for the change in the assessee's name, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 12 | 27 assessment year and the demand as per the assessment order. The sample of the approvals reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 13 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 14 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 15 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 16 | 27 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 17 | 27 It was a submission that there is no mention of the application of mind by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. It was further submission that a perusal of the ordersheet entries clearly shows that the records in respect of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 18 | 27 assessees have not been sent to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi and only the draft assessment orders have been sent to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. It was a further submission that under identical circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of groups concerns most specifically in the case of Rajat Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1 reported in (2020) 114 taxmann.com 536 has quashed the assessments on the ground that the approvals given by the JCIT under Section 153D of the Act was perfunctory and mechanical. The ld. AR drew our attention to para 14 to 14.6 of the order of the Coordinate bench which reads as follows: \"14. First four legal objections raises concerns over propriety of the assessment orders itself on the grounds of alleged predating of assessment orders in tandem with token and perfunctory approval of the draft assessment orders by superior authority without fulfillment of pre-requisites of section 153D of the Act. The first and foremost objection of the assessee throughout is that assessment orders were not really made on 28.11.2016 when it was ostensibly made but it was made on a later date. The respective assessment orders were thus challenged as void on the ground of such orders being antedated. It is the case of the assessee that a questionnaire raising substantial points was issued to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings under s. 153A of the Act on 21.11.2016 which required the assessee to make compliance thereof at a very short notice on 28.11.2016 at 11:30 a.m. On this date and time, the assessee was directed to furnish replies on various points. Admittedly, the assessee could not turn up on this date appointed for compliance. A reply to questionnaire was however filed on next day i.e. 29.11.2016. The AO however claimed to have passed the assessment order under s. 153A of the Act in the meanwhile i.e. on 28.11.2016 itself (appointed date of hearing) after taking necessary approval of Joint Commissioner under s.153D of the Act (involving 28 cases including 14 captioned appeals). In this context, it is the case of the assessee that firstly; the AO ought to Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 19 | 27 have waited at least till the closure of the date of compliance i.e. 28.11.2016 and he could have passed only after that date; secondly, it is difficult to fathom that the AO would be able to prepare 28 draft orders in a span of 2-3 hours involving complex issues in search matters; and thirdly, it is yet more difficult to fathom that the superior authority could plausibly go through the assessment records and the draft assessment orders and grant an informed approval with objective application of mind to such draft orders in search matters (involving contentious and complex legal and factual issues) on the same day in a further squeezed time available to the JCIT. In short, it is the case of the assessee that the time available at the disposal of the AO is hardly 5-6 hours of the day after the lapse of the appointed time on the date of hearing. In this very short period, apart from all other routine work carried out, the AO has purportedly drafted 28 assessment orders and forwarded the same to the JCIT (superior authority) together with case records and the JCIT, in turn, has perused such voluminous case records and granted approval contemplated under s. 153D of the Act to enable the AO to pass a formal final assessment order. 14.1 At the first look itself, we find considerable weight in the aforesaid plea of the assessee towards implausibility of such overzealous actions in a span of few hours. The unrealistic swiftness in the action of the AO in preparing 28 cases of such large stake and magnitude (without waiting for any time for compliance of a very short notice) and approval thereon by the superior authority in a Spur of moment is totally beyond any comprehension and does not accord with normal conduct of a responsible Statutory functionary. The presence of any countervailing circumstances for passing order without providing minimum opportunity to assessee to meet the allegations is not shown by the Revenue. It is a classic example of AO acting in subterfuge and cavalier manner while conducting the whole affairs. 14.2 Pertinent here to say, the proceedings before AO are quasi-judicial proceedings and all the proceedings was expected to be observed without laxity before the result of the were determined. The Revenue Officers must realize that statutory duties conferred on them are in the nature of a trust. They hold office as trustees of the public at large while dealing with public revenue and public money. We are unable to visualize as to how such long and I F Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 20 | 27 complex assessment orders could be prepared and finalized for the approval of superior authority in few hours even if some ongoing draft works were assumed to be available in this regard. A natural question would arise as to what was the hurry for doing so? When seen in conjunction, it is yet more difficult to perceive that any superior authority, expected to keep a strict vigil on the actions of AO under s. 153D of the Act, can possibly grant approval to such longish and high staked matters of as many as 28 cases in virtually no available time and remit the same to the AO on the same day for passing final order. Such inordinate and extravagant speed smacks of pretense and provokes us to think of colossal abnormality in conduct of the authorities concerned. 14.3 Needless to say, provision of section 153D of the Act casts onerous responsibility on the superior authority to look into the draft assessment framed by the subordinate officer with some degree of objectivity. Apparently, the whole exercise of the AO in claiming to have prepared assessment orders in as many as 28 cases within a short time available (after 11:30 a.m.) and approval thereon by the JCIT and closure of the assessment on the same day is not judicially palatable. As also observed earlier, the AO has prepared the draft assessment order without even waiting for completion of that date of hearing is gross sub- version of the quasi-judicial process and such ipse-dixit conduct deserves to be deprecated. The superior authority performing the solemn duty to supervise the action of the AO claimed to have approved such large staked search matter in a spur of moment does not inspire any confidence in such hawkish supervisory process. When sequence of events are integrated and collated, the plea of the assessee that the whole exercise of the aforesaid revenue authorities are antedated cannot be refuted to be without any substance. The stand of the assessee that the assessment order in all probability is antedated to avoid consideration of reply of the assessee filed on 29.11.2016 also clinches for two more reasons; (1) the assessment order itself assertively refers to the reply of the assessee in response to the questionnaire dated 21.11.2016 as per para 5.4 of the assessment order. The order sheet, as a matter of record, clearly shows that no reply was filed till the date of passing of the order to such questionnaire i.e. till 28.11.2016. The reply to questionnaire was filed on 29.11.2016. If the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 21 | 27 reply has been considered as asserted by the AO then a natural presumption would arise that assessment was kept open till at least 29.11.2016 and therefore the assessment order dated 28.11.20 16 is clearly antedated; & (ii) the assessment order has been sent by speed post on 14.12.2016 which clearly shows that the assessment orders which were passed with lightning speed but was languishing thereafter and dispatched after about two weeks from the date of passing the order. 14.4 The allegation of assessee is thus based on number of facts established by evidence and circumstances. Hence, whether the allegation made is sound or not must be determined by attaching weight to all facts cumulatively and by applying the test of preponderance of probabilities. The assessee is not expected to prove its case of antedating the order with mathematical precision where it is otherwise evident to a demonstrable degree. All that is required in such cases is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a reasonable person may, on its basis, believe in the existence of facts in issue. The conduct of Assessing Officer cannot be countenanced, howsoever soft stance we may incline to take. The conduct, when seen in totality, is unprecedented and casts infallible impression that the assessment orders giving rise to the captioned appeals are antedated indeed and thus a nullity in the eyes of law. All the assessment orders are required to be cancelled at the threshold in such sordid circumstances. 14.5 It would however be also pertinent to delineate whether the so called approval of JCIT under s.153D of the Act meets legal requirement or not. As repeatedly observed above, the JCIT purportedly carried out the exercise of granting approval in a baffling haste. The order sheets recorded by the AO shows that what was sent to the JCIT were only draft assessment orders seeking approval thereon. No reference to the assessment records also being sent together with the draft assessment orders is found in the order sheet. Communication/approval letter from JCIT is not placed before us by either side to examine this aspect. Considering these facts, the JCIT has presumably given approval while remaining oblivious of the assessment records. Notwithstanding aforesaid, the JCIT was expected to enquire into reply of the assessee in response to the questionnaire dated 21.11.2016 which was crucial and of utmost significance in the context of the allegations made by AO. JCIT however has summarily endorsed the action of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 22 | 27 the AO presuming no substance in replies allegedly filed without looking at it nor he could have seen such non-existent reply on 28.11.2016. Apparently, the approval granted by the JCIT, if any, suffers from inherent lack of application of mind on the draft assessment order and consideration of relevant assessment records. The purported approval so granted by the JCIT has been clearly reduced to an empty ritual rendering such approval to be invalid in the eyes of law. We also cannot loose sight of the fact that no minimal enquiry into the issues of substantial nature arising from the draft assessment orders have been made by the JCIT defeating the salutary purpose of Section 153D of the Act. 14.6 On appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case and peculiarities of the instant case and having regard to the long line of judicial precedents in similar circumstances including Pr.CIT vs. Shreelekha Damani (2019) 307 ITR 218 (Bom), Geetarani Panda (supra), Rishabhbhai Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra), AAA Paper Marketing Ltd. (supra) and Indira Bansal (supra), we find no hesitation to hold that the action of the JCIT under s.153D of the Act is to be regarded as perfunctory and mechanical in subversion of the spirit of Section 153D of the Act. Such symbolic approval is unfounded in law. As a corollary, in the absence of any valid approval under s.153D of the Act, the respective assessment orders giving cause of action in the form of captioned appeals requires to be quashed on this score also.\" It was a submission that in view of the same, the order of the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed. 5. In reply, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submitted that what is required under Section 153D is the approval by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. It was a submission that ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi has applied his mind and it is not open to the Tribunal to dwell into the application of mind my the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. It was a submission that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities as has been mentioned in the assessment order and there has been failure on the part of the assessee to respond to Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 23 | 27 the notices issued. The ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the orders of Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The peculiarity which is noticed in respect of approval granted by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi is that all the approvals are on the same day. All the approvals are the similar as in the case of Padam Kumar Jain and his group to the extent that the forwarding letter No. 250 has been struck off and different numbers has been noted by hand. The approvals are stereo typed except for the change in the assessee's name, assessment year and the total income determined and declared by the assessee. The approval mentions of corrections made in the draft assessment order, however, such corrections are not shown anywhere. A perusal of the ordersheet noting shows that the Tax Evasion petition has been received on 21/11/2016 on the basis of which, a detailed questionnaire has been issued in all the 28 cases related to the assessee group. The date of compliance in all such cases as provided by the Assessing Officer was even less than clear seven days. 7. Further on 23/11/2016, the Assessing Officer also records non-compliance and the proposal of demand and provisional attachments of the accounts of the assessee. Such approval from the ld. PCIT, Central, Patna has been received on 24/11/2016. Thus, it took the Pr.CIT, Central, Patna about 24 hours to give such approval for provisional attachment. 8. On 28/11/2016, the Assessing Officer records non-compliance at 11.30 AM and mentions that the draft assessment order has been sent for approval to Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 24 | 27 ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. Ordersheet does not talk of the assessment records having been sent to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi, as it only talks of draft assessment orders having been sent on 28/11/2016. Further even the letter sent by the Assessing Officer to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi on 28/11/2016, copy of which has already been reproduced above, talks about the draft assessment order being sent for approval. 9. The ordersheet further records that the approvals for the draft assessment orders was received from ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. In the said ordersheet noting, the numbers are correctly mentioned in respect of alleged approvals granted by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi and on 28/11/2016, final assessment orders have been prepared and sent by speed post. There is no mention of any mistake having been corrected by the Assessing Officer. It is admittedly humanly impossible for any person to grant approvals after verification of the records in so many cases in a matter of few hours wherein draft assessment order has been prepared after 11.30 AM and the assessment order has been alleged to have been passed before 4.50 PM, therefore, it is a matter of 5 hours and 20 minutes wherein, the draft assessment orders have been prepared in 28 cases, the same have been sent for approval to the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi in 28 cases, the same has been examined, verified and approved by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi. The same has been returned to the Assessing Officer after approval and the final assessment order has been passed and sent by speed post to the assessee's address in all 28 cases. In short, two officers have gone Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 25 | 27 through the records and orders prepared and dispatched within 5 hours 20 minutes. Admittedly, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has already quashed the assessments in 14 of the cases as has been referred in the case of Rajat Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT referred to supra. Here it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT Vs Serajuddin & co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) wherein the Hon'ble Orissa High Court have under similar circumstances in para 22 to 26 has held as follows: \"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 CIT. 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 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 'see' 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 AO 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. 23. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessment orders are totally silent about the AO having written to the Additional CIT seeking his approval or of the Additional CIT having granted such approval. Interestingly, the assessment orders were passed on 30th December 2010 without mentioning the above fact. These two orders were therefore not in compliance with the requirement spelt out in para 9 of the Manual of Official Procedure. 24. The above manual is meant as a guideline to the AOs. Since it was issued by the CBDT, the powers for issuing such guidelines can be traced to Section 119 of the Act. It has been held in a series of judgments that the instructions under section Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 26 | 27 119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 taxmann.com 1061 (SC)/2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (SC) the Supreme Court observed as under: \"Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries: 2002 (143) ELT 19 where the view of the Constitution Bench regarding the binding nature of circulars issued under section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was reiterated after it was drawn to the attention of the Court by the Revenue that there were in fact circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which gave a different interpretation to the phrase as interpreted by the Constitution Bench. The same view has also been taken in Simplex Castings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam 2003 (5) SCC 528. The principles laid down by all these decisions are: (1) Although a circular is not binding on a Court or an assessee, it is not open to the Revenue to raise the contention that is contrary to a binding circular by the Board. When a circular remains in operation, the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid nor that it is contrary to the terms of the statute. (2) Despite the decision of this Court, the Department cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. (3) A show cause notice and demand contrary to existing circulars of the Board are ab initio bad (4) It is not open to the Revenue to advance an argument or file an appeal contrary to the circulars.\" 25. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the hAT has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating the assessment orders themselves. 26. The question of law framed is therefore answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.\" The decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of ACIT Vs Serajuddin & co. (supra) has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP in 463 ITR 698 (SC). 10. In the present case, as it is noticed that the approval has been given by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi in a mechanical manner and without Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.27 to 40/Ran/2019 Smt. Tripta Sharma Vs DCIT & One Anr. P a g e 27 | 27 application of mind and there is no intimation that the approving authority has examined the draft assessment order alongwith the records as per the requirements of law, therefore, we are of the view that the approvals granted by the ld. JCIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi is unsustainable and we quash the same. Consequently, the assessment orders in the case of impugned appeals also stand quashed. 11. In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order announced in open court on 19th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 19/08/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "