Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur)
Approval u/s 153D is not a mere ritual- Mechanical or “rubber-stamp” approvals vitiate the entire assessment – Must reflect application of mind, case-specific reasoning & satisfaction for each year/assessee
Approval u/s 153D is not a mere ritual- Mechanical or “rubber-stamp” approvals vitiate the entire assessment — Must reflect application of mind, case-specific reasoning & satisfaction for each year/assessee. ITAT Raipur Quashes entire 153A Order
A search was conducted, and assessments were framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A for AY 2019-20. The competent authority granted approval u/s 153D on 23.03.2021, the very same day the AO sought it, covering 7 years (AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20). The approval was common for two assessees (Suresh Kumar Agrawal & Gaurav Kumar Agrawal) and did not record any independent satisfaction or reasoning. Assessee argued that such “rubber-stamp approval” violated legislative intent, making assessment invalid.
Tribunal observed that Approval u/s 153D must be independent & specific for each assessee and each assessment year. In this case, the approval was granted on the same date as the request, for multiple years together & contained no independent reasoning, only borrowed satisfaction from AO.
Identical issue was decided earlier in Mamta Agrawal vs. ACIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 28 (Raipur ITAT), where approval by the same officers was held mechanical & invalid. Delhi HC in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (467 ITR 186), PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (166 taxmann.com 327) and Allahabad HC in PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta (2022) held that 153D approval cannot be a formality; it must reflect application of mind. Orissa HC in ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) also ruled that mere “seen/approved” without reasons is invalid, which SC later upheld by dismissing Revenue’s SLP.
