Mahender Jakhar Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur)
The Jodhpur ITAT quashed the assessment framed under sections 153A/153B after holding that the mandatory approval granted under section 153D was merely mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the Joint Commissioner had accorded a common approval for seven assessment years in a single order, without recording any indication that the draft assessment orders had been examined or that any independent thought process had been applied. Relying on the decisions of the Orissa High Court in ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co., the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP in Serajuddin & Co., the Tribunal held that approval under section 153D is a mandatory safeguard and cannot be reduced to a mere rubber-stamping exercise. Since the statutory approval lacked due application of mind, the assessment itself was held to be non est, null and void, and was accordingly quashed. Having allowed the legal ground, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the addition under section 69A relating to cash seized by the police.
Cases Discussed
- PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd. (Del.), (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327
- PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (Bel.), (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9
- ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co. (SC), (2023) 163 taxmann.com 118
- ACIT, Circle 1(2) Vs. Serajuddin & Co. (Orissa HC), ITA Nos. 39 to 45 of 2022 dated 15.03.2023
- Suman Lata Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi, ITA Nos. 748 to 754/Jodh/2026, Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2010-11 dated 15.05.2026
- Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (SC), (2004) 165 ELT 257
- Central Board of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries, (2002) 143 ELT 19
- Simplex Castings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam (SC), (2003) 5 SCC 528
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JODHPUR






