Dileep K. Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
In this batch of six appeals arising from search assessments u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3), Assessee challenged the very validity of the assessments on the ground that approvals u/s 153D were issued mechanically by the JCIT, Central Range-8. ITAT examined the approval letters & order-sheet notings , noting that no assessment folders, seized material, investigation report, or records were ever forwarded to the JCIT; only the draft orders were sent on 28.03.2022/30.03.2022. Despite this, the JCIT issued approvals on 29.03.2022 & 31.03.2022 mentioning that draft orders were “as amended”, though there was no evidence of any such amendment or discussion—indicating a template approval, not a reasoned one.
ITAT relied heavily on its own earlier ruling in Manoj Kumar Singh involving the same JCIT, where verbatim identical approvals issued on the same date were held to be mechanical. ITAT also analysed CBDT’s Digital Evidence Investigation Manual & found that AO had not adhered to mandatory procedures such as chain-of-custody documentation, forensic reports, hash value verification, evidentiary linkage, or detailed analysis. JCIT’s approval expressly relied only on AO’s certificate without any independent verification.
Tribunal then applied the binding rulings of Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar & Anuj Bansal, Allahabad HC in Sapna Gupta, Orissa HC in Serajuddin & Co. (SLP dismissed by SC), all of which hold that 153D approval must show independent mind & cannot be a rubber stamp. It held that approving 100+ cases in one day, without perusal of seized material, shows clear non-application of mind.
