Income Tax : The ruling clarifies that unauthenticated digital chats and screenshots cannot form the sole basis of tax additions without proper...
Income Tax : Examine the legal disputes surrounding Section 153D approvals for tax assessments, including court rulings on mechanical approvals...
Income Tax : The ruling clarifies that unauthenticated digital chats and screenshots cannot form the sole basis of tax additions without proper...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that granting of mandatory approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act by Additional Commissioner of Income ...
Income Tax : The ITAT upheld ₹90 lakh addition as the assessee failed to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The r...
Income Tax : In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relie...
Income Tax : The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limi...
Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Tribunal held that granting a consolidated, template-style approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D is illegal. The key takeaway is that the mandatory approval for a search assessment (Sec. 153C/153D) requires independent application of mind for each assessment year.
The Delhi ITAT sustained a Rs.42.98 lakh addition for unexplained expenditure found in a seized diary, ruling that the entries proved a sufficient nexus to the assessee under Section 292C. However, the Tribunal provided partial relief by directing the lower tax rate under the pre-amendment Section 115BBE to be applied for AY 2015-16.
This decision reinforces the legal requirement that supervisory approval under Section 153D is a substantive safeguard, not an empty ritual. The High Court affirmed that granting blanket sanction to 246 assessments through a generic endorsement is equivalent to a mechanical approval that fails to satisfy legislative intent.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s legal ground, holding that the statutory requirement of prior approval under Section 153D was reduced to an empty formality. The ruling emphasizes that the approval must indicate due application of mind to the seized material and issues for each assessment year and cannot be a generic, consolidated format.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
The ITAT voided multiple search assessments because the statutory approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that a single, proforma approval for 42 assessment orders across multiple assessees, lacking specific facts or reasoning, renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
The ITAT Chandigarh quashed income tax assessments under Section 153A, ruling that the mandatory Section 153D approval was mechanical and invalid. The Tribunal held that the approving authority failed to apply independent reasoning, using a ‘rubber stamp’ proforma for multiple assessees without considering specific facts or seized material, thus making the entire assessment void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
Drawing on precedents, the ITAT held that a mandatory Section 153D approval for search assessments must be proven. The assessment order was set aside because the Department could not locate or produce the JCIT’s prior approval and satisfaction note after eight years.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical, same-day approval for 43 cases under Section 153D vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed for lack of valid approval, emphasizing the necessity of independent application of mind by the approving authority.
