Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Similarly appeals have been filed by the assessee in the case of another connected assessee captioned above namely M/s Arch Impex Ltd. raising similar grievance on an identical legal issue.

3. Since the legal issue of legitimacy of approval under S. 153D raised in all the appeals/ cross objections of both the assessee are similar, hence, all the matters were heard together and is being disposed off by this consolidated order.

4. At the commencement of hearing, Ld. AR representing both the assessee pointed out that both assessee captioned above have also filed the additional grounds of appeal whereby legality of approval granted by the designated superior authority u/s 153D have been challenged. It was further submitted that assessee M/s Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. has also filed the cross objection for Assessment Year 2004-05 & AY 2005-06 in revenues appeal and has also invoked Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to seek remedy on legal fatality committed by the designated authority under S. 153D of the Act. It was submitted that all I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd.

(022) 22030602 No.Addl. CIT/CR. VIII/153D./2010-11 Dated:
31/12/2010 To, The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-32, Mumbai.
Sub : Approval u/s,153D of the I.T. Act in the cases of of Arch Group - Order u/s 143(3) r.ws. 153A for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2008-09 & Order u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2009-10 - Reg.
Ref.: letter No.ACIT-32/Appr. u/s. 153D/2010-11 dated 29.11.2010.
show that it is only a ritualistic approval to comply with the provisions of law. It was contended that the whole procedure adopted by the revenue clearly defeats the intent and purpose behind insertion of section 153D brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2007.
9.3 To support the proposition that a mechanical approval by the superior authority is only illusory and cannot be equated with statutory approval contemplated under section 153D of the Act, it was submitted that several decisions have been rendered by the co-ordinate benches to this effect and have also been vetted by the Hon'ble High Courts. The Ld. AR referred to the decisions of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt Shreelekha Damani 307 CTR 0218 (Bom) to assert the legal objection. The decision of Tribunal in Shrelekha Damani vs. DCIT (2015) 173 TTJ 0332 (Mum.) was also referred to and relied upon. Another decision of co-ordinate bench in the case of The Navbharat Refrigeration & Industries Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No 136/Mum/2013 and ors. dated 01.10.15 was referred wherein also mechanical exercise of statutory approval under section 153D was disapproved. It was thus contended that text and tenor of approval by designated authority read in conjunction with the communication letter of AO clearly reveals an abstract approval without any underlying seized material and without assessment records being made available for approval of so called draft assessment order. It was submitted that the Addl. CIT I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd.

11.2 In the backdrop of facts narrated in the preceding paras, it is the contention on behalf of the asssessee that approval granted under S. 153D does not meet the requirement of law and hence assessment orders passed in consequence of such non-est I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 & others Arch Pharmalabs Ltd & Arch Impex P. Ltd.

approval is a nullity in law. The assessment orders thus passed is vitiated in law which illegality cannot be cured. In support of charge of nonest approval, several contentions have been raised viz (i) the approval accorded under section 153D is without any occasion to refer to the assessment records and seized material, if any, incriminating the assessee and hence such approval is in the realm of an abstract approval of draft assessment orders which was unsubstantiated and unsupported and consequently suffered from total non-application of mind (ii) approval granted hurriedly in a spur involving voluminous assessments spanning over 7 assessment years and thus only a symbolic exercise to meet the requirement of law (iii) Total lack of objectivity in drawing satisfaction on objective material while giving a combined approval for 7 assessments and also without evaluating the nuances of each assessment year involved (iv) the mundane action of Addl. CIT under S. 153D in a cosmetic manner gives infallible impression of approval on dotted line and thus defeats the purpose of supervision of search assessments (iv) initialed draft assessment orders not available in office records.