Jitender Kumar Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Once the foundational jurisdiction is lacking, the additions made by AO do not survive for adjudication- 153A Assessments Quashed for Invalid & Mechanical Approval u/s 153D
In this consolidated decision involving six appeals, Delhi Bench examined the core jurisdictional challenge raised by Assessee against assessments framed u/s 153A subsequent to a search conducted on 06.06.2018. Assessee contended that the assessments were void because the approval u/s 153D, which is a mandatory statutory precondition for framing assessments in search cases, was issued in a mechanical & perfunctory manner. The approval reproduced in the order revealed that Addl. CIT had issued a single, composite sanction covering all years together, without recording any independent reasoning, without demonstrating examination of the draft orders, & without year-wise satisfaction as required by law. Assessee relied on the decisions in Millenium Vinimay (ITAT Delhi), PCIT Vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar (Del HC), Ashok Commercial Enterprises (Bom HC) & also Tribunal’s own decision in Assessee’s case for AY 2013-14 dated 29.09.2025, all holding that mechanical approval vitiates the assessment.
Tribunal observed that the statutory mandate of s.153D obligates the superior authority to apply an independent mind for each assessment year, since every year constitutes a separate assessment unit. The record however showed that a single blanket approval was granted for multiple years, which by itself indicated non-application of mind. Tribunal also noted jurisprudence from the jurisdictional High Court that approval u/s 153D cannot be reduced to a ritualistic formality, especially when granted for several cases or several years on the same day, without any material indicating scrutiny of the draft orders. Tribunal held that such an approval is invalid, arbitrary, mechanical & dehors the requirement of law. Consequently, the assessments framed on the basis of such defective approval are rendered non-est. Tribunal therefore quashed the assessments for all six years, holding that once the foundational jurisdiction is lacking, the additions made by AO do not survive for adjudication. All appeals were accordingly partly allowed with the substantive legal ground decided in favour of the Assessee.
