TAVLEEN RESORTS AND SPA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

ITA 3363/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Tavleen Resorts & SPA Pvt. Ltd., which was subjected to a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on November 19, 2018. Following the search, assessments for the years 2014-15 to 2019-20 were initiated under section 153A of the Act. The primary legal issues revolved around the maintainability of additions made in the assessments, the validity of the approval under section 153D, and the merits of the additions themselves. The Tribunal found that the additions were made without any incriminating material directly linked to the assessee and that the approvals for the assessments were granted in a mechanical manner without substantive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37076 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., PCIT vs. King Buildcon (P) Ltd., ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. Kolkata, PCIT vs Anuj Bansal, PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar, PCIT vs MDLR Hotels(P)Ltd., PCT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddarth Gupta, PCIT vs. Subodh Agarwal, Shreelekha Damani vs DCIT, Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & ors., M3M India Holdings vs DCIT, Vrushali Sanjay Shinde vs DCIT, Sanjay Duggal vs ACIT, PCIT vs Subhash Dabas, Daze Construction Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT, Veena Singh vs ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJEET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR; ADITYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Competent authority
• Section: 148; 143(3); 143(1); 132; 153A; 13; 69A; 153C; 20

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/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.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 [Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2019-20] Tavleen Resorts & SPA Pvt.Ltd. M-14, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash-1 Delhi-110048. PAN-AADCT7087J vs DCIT Central Circle-2 Gurgaon APPELLANT RESPONDENT 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(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] emanating from respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer [AO] tabulated hereunder: Sr. Nos. ITA Nos. CIT(A) Order dated Assessment Order dated 1. 3361/Del/2024 [AY 2014-15] CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon order dated 12.07.2024 15.09.2021 passed under s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. 3362/Del/2024 [AY 2015-16] -do- -do- 3. 3363/Del/2024 [AY 2016-17] -do- -do- 4. 3364/Del/2024 [AY 2017-18] -do- -do- 5. 3365/Del/2024 [AY 2018-19] -do- -do- ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 2 6. 3366/Del/2024 [AY 2019-20] -do- -do- 2. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the issues involved for AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20 are broadly common, interlinked and arises from the search action on the assessee and other group concerns covering the assessee. Hence, all captioned appeals have been heard together and accordingly adjudicated by this common order. 3. As per Grounds of Appeal, the assessee has challenged first appellate orders and the respective assessment orders broadly on following contours; (A) Legal objection on maintainability of additions carried out in the assessment order passed under s. 153A of the Act unconnected to 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 assessee is involved in the development of a resort- cum-hotel at Village Bhalawag, Chail-Kufri Road, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The assessee was covered in a search and seizure operation under s. 132 on 19.11.2018 and 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 and abated AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 in question. While framing search assessments noted above, the AO inter alia made additions and disallowances for different assessment years under appeal. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 3 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) 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 found during the course of search initiated against the assessee under s. 132 of the Act on 19.11.2018 and such assessments stood concluded and remained unabated at the time of initiation of search. It was further contended that third parties statements adverse to assessee in a different proceedings do not give rise to legally basis for making additions in respect of unabated assessments. The assessee 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 ritualistic manner without application of mind. The Assessee 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 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 first appellate order 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. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 4 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 not an empty legal formality but seeks to place enormous statutory responsibility on the authority to ensure fair play and just and proper order by the AO. The casual exercise of powers under s. 153D has actually frustrated the very purpose of such valuable safeguard & 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. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 5 10. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and perused the respective first appellate orders passed for AYs 2014-15 to AY 2018-19 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 pertaining legal issues emanating in these cases: (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 assessment and whether while making assessment under s. 153A of the Act, the Revenue is entitled to interfere with already concluded (and not abated) assessment 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. 13. It is the case of the assessee that the assessment for captioned AY 2014- 15 to AY 2017-18 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 ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 6 as evident from the respective assessment orders and consequent first appellate orders. The assessments under s. 153A have been framed primarily relying on certain adverse statement of third person, data recovered from third person etc. which cannot 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 2014-15 to AY 2017-18 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. (iii) Material collected by the AO from third persons in post search or from other unconnected to search proceedings cannot be used for assessment under s. 153A in unabated cases. The additions made in the proceedings under s. 153A based on material found in the course of search/survey in the case of third person or statement of third person is unsustainable in law and the right course available to the AO in law was to proceed against the assessee either under s. 153C or under s. 148 as the case may be rather than under s. 153A of the Act. The additions made under s. 153A of the Act are bad in law on this score too. (iv) On merits, the assessee contends that alleged cash payments made to certain parties 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 ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 7 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. 14. We straight away advert to the 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.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 8 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 12.05.2021 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 13.05.2021. The so-called approvals were given in a consolidated manner to the assessment orders spanning over AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19. Significantly, the Add. 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 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 13.05.2021 (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 ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 9 to act as 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 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. 14.4 The assessee further contends that besides gross non application of mind discernible from such combined approval memo itself, assessment orders so approved are also marred by critical lapses and mistakes which remained unnoticed by the Addl. CIT. This shows that the Addl. CIT has not even cared to read the assessment orders but left every act to the wisdom of the AO. The assessee contends that the lapses / omissions committed as noticeable from the assessment orders have direct bearing on the process of reasoning adopted to come to conclusions on the ultimate additions/ disallowances. Some of the instances as may be observed are; AY Paragraph and Page No. of the Assessment Order Description and Comments Omission that the Ld. Additional Commissioner could have asked 2014- 15 Page 38 para 6(b) The respective document/summary sheet is produced herewith: No documentary/summary sheet has been reproduced. 2015- 16 Page 38 para 6(b) The respective document/summary sheet is produced herewith: No documentary/ summary sheet has been reproduced. 2016- 17 Page 38 para 6(b) The respective document/summary sheet is produced herewith: No documentary/ summary sheet has been reproduced. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 10 2017- 18 Page 3 (i)a The abstract sheet of RAB 33 is reproduced herewith No abstract sheet has been produced. Page 4 The summary sheet of RA 33 is attached No summary sheet has been attached. Page 5 The relevant extract of the statement given by Sh.Mohd. Tariq is reproduced herewith as under: No Part of the statement has been reproduced. Page 6 The summary sheet of both the RABs bearing the same dates but having different values of work for identical items are reproduced herewith: No summary sheet has been attached. Page 7 The Abstract summary sheet of the respective RAB is reproduced herewith: No summary sheet has been attached. Page 10 Point iv The extract of his statement is reproduced as under: No Part of the statement has been reproduced. Page 20 Para 6 Point a The said summary sheet is reproduced herewith: No Part of the statement has been reproduced Page 24 Point vii Copy of stated summary is reproduced herewith: No summary sheet has been attached. Page 25 Point vii The extract of statement of Sh.Hitesh Jaju is reproduced herewith: No Part of the statement has been reproduced. Page 29 Point 8 The excel sheet is reproduced herewith: No excel sheet has been attached. Page 29 Point 8 Copy of said receipt is reproduced herewith: No copy has been attached Page 30 The relevant extract of statement of Sh.Javed Saify is reproduced. No part of the Statement has been reproduced. Page 34 The statement of Sh.Kapil Razdan is reproduced herewith as under: No part of the Statement has been reproduced. Page 38 The extract of statement of Sh. Ramanjit Singh, Director of Anumeet No part of the Statement has been reproduced. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 11 Technocrats Pvt.Ltd. is reproduced as under: 2018- 19 Page 3 The copy of the stated summary sheet is reproduced herewith: No part of the Statement has been reproduced. Page 7 The excel sheet is reproduced herewith: No excel sheet has been attached. Page 7 Copy of said receipt is reproduced No copy has been reproduced Page 8 The relevant extract of statement of Sh.Javed Saify is reproduced hereunder for reference: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Page 13 The statement of Sh.Kapil Razdan is reproduced herewith as under: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Page 17 The extract of statement of Sh. Ramanjit Singh, Director of Anumeet Technocrats Pvt.Ltd. is reproduced as under: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Pg 21 point 7 The abstract sheet/summary sheet is produced herewith as under:- No abstract has been attached. Page 29 Point 9 The extract of statement os Sh.Kamal Kamboj is produced herewith: No part of the statement has been reproduced. Page32 point 10 The RABs and the relevant extracts of the statement of Sh.Abhay Kumar Jena, Accountant are reproduced here as under: No RABs and the relevant extracts of the statement has been attached. 15. The Ld.CIT DR appearing for revenue has however strongly defended the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act and submitted 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. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 12 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 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 necessarily required to objectively evaluate such draft assessment order with due application of mind on various issues contained in such order so as to derive his/ her 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 merely as a 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 At this juncture, 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.) ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 13 • 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) • 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 ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 14 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 acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the AO. The approval granted under section 153D of the Act 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 submission of the AO 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 and 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 ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 15 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 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 Besides, the Assessee has also demonstrated glaring lapses in the respective assessment orders which could easily be detected on a bare reading of such orders. Impliedly, the Addl. CIT has not even cared to read the assessment orders while entrusted with the task of approval of such orders. Furthermore, a common approval for all assessment years in complex matters of search without identifying or discussing any issue in relation to any assessment year further shows no semblance of any application of mind to any aspect of any assessment years. 16.6. 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 plausible reasons whatsoever and thus cannot be reckoned to be a judicial finding on the point. The observations so made are 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, the aspects of other objections on jurisdiction under s. 153A and absence of DIN etc. or aspects of merits of additions does not call for separate adjudication. ITA Nos.3361 to 3366/Del/2024 Page | 16 19. In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No.3361 to 3365/Del/2024 [AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19] 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 "