Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Smt. Seema Mittal,

ITSSA 25/JAB/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2522916 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ADSPM6567B
Bench Jabalpur
Appeal Number ITSSA 25/JAB/2014
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Respondent Smt. Seema Mittal,
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 05-02-2021
First Hearing Date 05-02-2021
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 28-03-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI NRS GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER & SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2009-10 & 2010-11 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.31/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.18/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.32/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 2 CO NO.19/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.34/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.21/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6567B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NOS.48 TO 50/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 2009-10 & 2010-11 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHL4727R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 3 IT(SS)A NO.97/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHL4727R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.44/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHL4727R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.98/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHL4727R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.45/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHL4727R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.65/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI VS. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 4 M.P. COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6542Q) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.94/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6542Q) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NO.45/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.73/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.33/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 5 (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.74/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.34/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.75/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.35/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 6 IT(SS)A NOS.58 TO 62/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 TO 2007-08 & 2009-10 TO 2 010-11 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6555B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.80/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6555B) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.86/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6555B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.81/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6555B) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.87/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 7 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6555B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.54/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AACHV2243J) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.37/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AACHV2243J) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NO.83/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AACHV2243J) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.85/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI VS. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 8 M.P. 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AACHV2243J) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.39/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AACHV2243J) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NO.64/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.91/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.79/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 9 IT(SS)A NO.92/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.80/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.93/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.81/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6537F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.15 16 &17/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2008-09 & 2009-10 SMT. SEEMA MITTAL ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 10 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6549F) VS. INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.25/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SEEMA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6549F) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.12/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SEEMA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6549F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.18 19 20 & 21/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2008-09 2009-10 & 2010-1 1 SMT. SATYA DEVI MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6568Q) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.43/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SATYA DEVI MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6568Q) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 11 (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.30/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SATYA DEVI MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6568Q) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.44/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SATYA DEVI MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6568Q) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.31/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. SATYA DEVI MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6568Q) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.10 & 11/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008-09&2009-10 SMT. KAVITA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ACIPA3747L) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.39/JAB/2014 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. KAVITA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ACIPA3747L) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.26/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. KAVITA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ACIPA3747L) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.56 & 63/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008-09 & 2009-10 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6547M) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.108/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6547M) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.92/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 13 KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6547M) M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.109/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6547M) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.93/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6547M) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.46&46/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 & 2009-10 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAEHS7392R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.111/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 14 (PAN : AAEHS7392R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.103/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAEHS7392R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.113/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAEHS7392R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.104/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAEHS7392R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.114/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 15 (PAN : AAEHS7392R) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.105/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAEHS7392R) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.6 7 8 & 9/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 2008-09 2009-10&2010-11 SMT. SARLA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6548E) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.29/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SARLA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6548E) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.16/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SARLA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6548E) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 16 IT(SS)A NO.30/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SMT. SARLA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6548E) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.17/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. SARLA MITTAL 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : ADSPM6548E) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.51 52&53/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 2007-08 &2009-10 SHRI C.R. MITTAL & SONS (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.103/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. SHRI C.R. MITTAL & SONS (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.50/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 17 SHRI C.R. MITTAL & SONS (HUF) 8 HIG HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI M.P. (PAN : AAAHC9481K) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.117 TO 119&120/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 TO 2006-07 & 2009-10 KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.157/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.66/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.160/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 18 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.69/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.161/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.70/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.162/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 19 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.71/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK1723A) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.132 TO 134 &136 TO 138/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 TO 2006-07&2008-09 TO 2010 -11 M.P MINERALS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AAACM0942L) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.115 &116/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 & 2005-06 MITTAL ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AAACM1693A) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NOS.130 &131/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 & 2005-06 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 20 MITTAL TRACTORS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AADCM8736B) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NO.121/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PLM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AAACP7878C) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS) A. NO.122 & 123/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 & 2005-06 V. K. TRACTORS & AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCV8402D) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.151/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. KATNI BAUXITE PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK4712F) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 21 CO NO.51/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 KATNI BAUXITE PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK4712F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.152/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. KATNI BAUXITE PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK4712F) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.52/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KATNI BAUXITE PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCK4712F) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.141/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. TRACKWAY SECURITIES & FINANCE PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCT0135D) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 22 (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.73/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 TRACKWAY SECURITIES & FINANCE PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AABCT0135D) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.124/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. VS. VIJAY MARBLES PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AACCV0159L) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.74/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 VIJAY MARBLES PVT. LTD. 26 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOUSING BOARD COLONY KATNI(M.P) (PAN : AACCV0159L) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI DHIRAJ GHAI CA RESPONDENT BY SMT. NEERJA PRADHAN C.I.T.-DR DATE OF HEARING 05/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 /03/2021 ORDER SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 23 PER BENCH: ALL THE APPEALS OF THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. C.I.T.(A). SINCE COMMON IS SUES ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS WE HEARD THE SA ME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI DHIRAJ GHAI THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST GROUND TAKEN BY HIM IS WITH REGARD TO APP ROVAL BY THE JCIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 153D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER). ACCORDING TO LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE NO ASSESSMENT ORDER SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS IT IS APPRO VED BY THE JCIT. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE JCIT IN CATEGORICALLY TERMS SAYS THAT DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS HE WAS HOLDING CHARGES OF SIX RANGES IT WAS NOT POSSI BLE FOR HIM TO GO INTO DEEP. THEREFORE THE JCIT WITHOUT GOING TO THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER APPROVED ONLY FOR TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT U/S 153D OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SECTI ON 153D OF THE ACT THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGU ED THAT UNLESS THE JCIT APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D AND THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PROPOSED BY AO IT CANNOT BE C ONSTRUED AS APPROVAL AS REQUIRED U/S 153D OF THE ACT. PLACING RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SANJAY DUNGAL & OTHERS VS. M/S. ACIT IN ITA SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 24 NO. 1813/DEL/2019 & ORS. (COPIES OF WHICH AVAILABLE IN THE P.B). SUBMITTED THAT APPROVAL OF JCIT IS NOT A MERE FORMA LITY OR RITUAL. IT IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION. 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE JCIT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF T HE MATTER AND GRANTED ONLY A TECHNICAL APPROVAL THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDIC TION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS CONFIRMED BY THE C.I.T.(A) IS INVALID NON-EST AND VOID HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS CONFIRMED BY C.I.T.(A) CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF L AW. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED A COPY OF T HE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PAPER BOOK IN CASE OF TARACHAND KHATRI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 21/JAB/2019 DATED 17.01.2020. THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS FOUND THAT UNLESS THE JCIT APPLIED HIS MIND T O THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHILE GRANTING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 153 D OF THE ACT. THE TECHNICAL APPROVAL CANNOT BE AN APPROVED AT ALL. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. SHREELEKHA DAMANI AND LUC KNOW BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AAA PAPER MARKETING LTD. VS. ACIT. 4. ON THE CONTRARY SMT. NEERJA PRADHAN LD. REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THE LETTER OF THE JCIT SAYS THAT HE WAS SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 25 HOLDING THE CHARGES OF SIX RANGES THEREFORE IT WA S NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO GO INTO THE DEEP HOWEVER FINALLY HE APPROVED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT U/S 153D OF THE ACT. B EFORE THIS TECHNICAL APPROVAL WAS GIVEN ACCORDING TO LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE A.O. AND THE JCIT WHIC H IS EVIDENT FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE JCIT AND THE A.O. REFERR ING TO THE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE A.O. BY THE JCIT THE L D. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE A.O. AND THE JCI T THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND. THE A.O. ALSO HAS RESPONDED TO THE LETTER OF THE JCIT DATED 21.12.2011 BY THIS LETTER DATED 22.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INVITED FOR THE DISCUSSION AL ONG WITH THE A.O. IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE JCIT. THE JCIT HAS ALSO WRITTEN A L ETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER ON 20.12.2011 IN ORDER TO TAKE THE COM MISSIONER INTO CONFIDENCE. THE A.O ALSO BY HIS LETTER DATED 26.12. 2011 REMINDED THE JCIT TO GIVE APPROVAL AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITIES SIN CE THE ASSESSMENT IS GETTING TIME BARRED. 5. THE LD. DR PLACED HER RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT O F THE SUPREME COURT IN C.I.T. VS. JAI PRAKASH SINGH (219 ITR 737) AND SUBMITTED THAT CHARGING SECTIONS FIX THE LIABILITY TO TAX AND ANY VIOLATION OF MACHINERY PROVISION WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VOID . ONCE THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY AGREED TO THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES THEN IT IS NOT SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 26 NECESSARY TO RECORD REASONS FOR SO AGREEING. REFERR ING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN C.I.T. VS. RATANBAI N.K. D UBASH (230 ITR 495). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE POWER TO DETERM INE THE INCOME VEST IN THE AUTHORITY EXERCISING THE QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIO N. IT IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION THAT CAN RENDE R THE ASSESSMENT INVALID. THE ACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY ADDITIONAL C. I.T. DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS WHICH STILL VESTS IN A.O. THEREFORE EVEN IF THERE IS SOME DEFECT IN THE TECHNICAL APPROVAL GRAN TED BY THE JCIT THE SAME MAY NOT INVALIDATE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF BOT H THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BOT H THE SIDES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL U/S 153D GOES TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENI ENCE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153D IS REPRODUCED HEREWITH. [SECTION 153D. PRIOR APPROVAL NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT IN CASES OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE PAS SED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER IN RES PECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF [SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A] OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153B EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER.] 7. THIS PROVISION CLEARLY SAYS THAT NO ASSESSMENT O RDER SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS IT IS APPROVED BY THE JCIT. IN OTHER WORDS THE A.O. IS PROHIBITED FROM PASSING ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE JCIT. THE SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 27 PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM THOUGHT IT FIT IN CASES OF SEARCHES A SENIOR OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THE RANK OF THE JOINT COMMISSI ONER HAS TO GRANT HIS/HER APPROVAL BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THIS PROVISION OF SECTION 153D IS NOT AN EMPTY FORMALITY. IT HAS ITS OWN SANCTITY IN THE EYE OF LAW. IN OTHER WORDS UNLESS THE JCIT APPROVES THE P ROPOSAL/DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE A.O. BY APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER THE A.O. WOULD NOT GET JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS THE AO WILL BE VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO P ASS ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY AFTER THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY JCIT U/S. 153D. HENCE THE APPROVAL OF JCIT IS MANDATORILY REQUIREMENT. 8. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN JAI PRAKASH SINGH (SUPRA). THIS JUDGMENT O F THE APEX COURT RELATE TO SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A COPY OF APPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY STATUTORY PROVISION. THE REFORE THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH IS CASE. 9. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN MRS. RATANBAI N.K. DUBASH (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE AO PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT OBTAINING DIRECTION FROM INSPECTING A SSISTING COMMISSIONER. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS ANNULLED. THIS JUDGMENT O F THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN FACT SUPPORTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. M OREOVER THE BENCH OF SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 28 THE TRIBUNAL IN TARACHAND KHATRI (SUPRA) HAS FOUND THAT ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO APPROVAL U/S. 153D OF T HE ACT. ONE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IS PARTY TO THE ORDER. 10. NOW LET US EXAMINE WHETHER THE JCIT GRANTED AP PROVAL FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT U/S. 153D THE COMMISSIONER HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THE JCIT INTENDED TO TAKE THE COMMISSIONER INTO CONFIDENCE BY ADDRESS ING A LETTER TO HIM. THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALL THE POWERS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN CASE HE/SHE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE ARE REPRODUCING THE CORRESP ONDENCE BETWEEN THE JCIT ON THE ONE HAND AND A.O. ON OTHER AND ALSO A L ETTER WRITTEN BY JCIT TO THE COMMISSIONER. OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 CR BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF RANGE-II JABALPUR RANGE-SATNA KATNI CHHINDWARA AND SAGAR F.NO.JCIT/RANGE/KATNI/MITTAIL/2011-12 DATED: 26. 12.2011 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI SUB: STATUTORY APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 153D IN THE CASES OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI- REG. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO.ACIT/KTE/MITTAL/153D /11-12 DATED 23 RD DECEMBER 2011 FORWARDING THEREWITH DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDERS IN MITTAL GROUP OF CASES FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2010-11: SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 29 COVERING LETTER DATE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR 23.12.2011 1. KATNI BAUXITE PVT. LTD. 2. V.K. TRACTORS AUTOMOBILES P. LTD. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS I AM HOLDING CHARGE OF SIX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEEP THEREFORE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES SUBMITTED BY YOU ARE HEREBY APPROVE D U/S 153D AS PER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. CASE RECORDS AS RECEIVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. 3. PLEASE ENSURE PASSING OF ORDER ISSUE OF DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN AS ALSO SERVICE BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE. (ABHISHEK SHUKLA) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-KATNI OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 CR BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF RANGE-II JABALPUR RANGE-SATNA KATNI CHHINDWARA AND SAGAR F.NO.JCIT/RANGE/KATNI/MITTAIL/2011-12 DATED: 26. 12.2011 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI SUB: STATUTORY APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 153D IN THE CASES OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI- REG. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO.ACIT/KTE/MITTAL/153D /11-12 DATED 26 TH DECEMBER 2011 FORWARDING THEREWITH DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDERS IN MITTAL GROUP OF CASES FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2010-11: COVERING LETTER DATE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR 26.12.2011 1. VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL KATNI (INDL) 2. M/S MITTAL ROADWAYS 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 30 3. M.P MINERALS PVT. LTD. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS I AM HOLDING CHARGE OF SIX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEEP THEREFORE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES SUBMITTED BY YOU ARE HEREBY APPROVE D U/S 153D AS PER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. CASE RECORDS AS RECEIVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. 3. PLEASE ENSURE PASSING OF ORDER ISSUE OF DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN AS ALSO SERVICE BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE. (ABHISHEK SHUKLA) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-KATNI OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 CR BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF RANGE-II JABALPUR RANGE-SATNA KATNI CHHINDWARA AND SAGAR F.NO.JCIT/RANGE/KATNI/MITTAIL/2011-12 DATED: 26. 12.2011 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI SUB: STATUTORY APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 153D IN THE CASES OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI- REG. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO.ACIT/KTE/MITTAL/153D /11-12 DATED 15 TH DECEMBER 2011 FORWARDING THEREWITH DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDERS IN MITTAL GROUP OF CASES FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2010-11: COVERING LETTER DATE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR 15.12.2011 1. ADITYA WELFARE TRUST 2. VEDANSH WELFARE TRUST 3. VINEET WELFARE TRUST 4. ANKUR WELFARE TRUST 5. C.R. MITTAL & SONS (HUF) 6. PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL(HUF) 7. LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 8. SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 9. VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 31 2. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS I AM HOLDING CHARGE OF SIX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEEP THEREFORE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES SUBMITTED BY YOU ARE HEREBY APPROVE D U/S 153D AS PER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. CASE RECORDS AS RECEIVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. 3. PLEASE ENSURE PASSING OF ORDER ISSUE OF DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN AS ALSO SERVICE BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE. (ABHISHEK SHUKLA) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-KATNI OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 CR BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF RANGE-II JABALPUR RANGE-SATNA KATNI CHHINDWARA AND SAGAR F.NO.JCIT/RANGE/KATNI/MITTAIL/2011-12 DATED: 26. 12.2011 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI SUB: STATUTORY APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 153D IN THE CASES OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI- REG. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO.ACIT/KTE/MITTAL/153D /11-12 DATED 16 TH DECEMBER 2011 FORWARDING THEREWITH DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDERS IN MITTAL GROUP OF CASES FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2010-11: COVERING LETTER DATE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR 16.12.2011 1. SMT. SATYA DEVI (INDIVIDUAL) 2. SMT. SARLA MITTAL (INDIVIDUAL) 3.SMT. KAVITA MITTAL (INDIVIDUAL) 4.SMT. SEEMA MITTAL (INDIVIDUAL) 5.SMT. SARIKA MITTAL (INDIVIDUAL) 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS I AM HOLDING CHARGE OF SIX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEEP THEREFORE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES SUBMITTED BY YOU ARE HEREBY APPROVE D U/S 153D AS PER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. CASE RECORDS AS RECEIVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 32 3. PLEASE ENSURE PASSING OF ORDER ISSUE OF DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN AS ALSO SERVICE BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE. (ABHISHEK SHUKLA) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-KATNI OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 CR BUILDING NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF RANGE-II JABALPUR RANGE-SATNA KATNI CHHINDWARA AND SAGAR F.NO.JCIT/RANGE/KATNI/MITTAIL/2011-12 DATED: 26. 12.2011 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI SUB: STATUTORY APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 153D IN THE CASES OF DIFFERENT ASSESSES OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI- REG. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO.ACIT/KTE/MITTAL/153D /11-12 DATED 20 TH DECEMBER 2011 FORWARDING THEREWITH DRAFT ASSESSME NT ORDERS IN MITTAL GROUP OF CASES FOR AY 2004-05 TO 2010-11: COVERING LETTER DATE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20.12.2011 1. PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL(INDL) 2.SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (INDL) 3. VIJAY MARBLES PVT. LTD. 4. PLM BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 5.TRACKWAY SECURITIES & FINANCE PVT. LTD. 6. MITTAL TRACTORS PVT. LTD. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS I AM HOLDING CHARGE OF SIX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEEP THEREFORE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES SUBMITTED BY YOU ARE HEREBY APPROVE D U/S 153D AS PER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. CASE RECORDS AS RECEIVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. 3. PLEASE ENSURE PASSING OF ORDER ISSUE OF DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN AS ALSO SERVICE BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE. (ABHISHEK SHUKLA) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 33 JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-KATNI OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KATNI (MP) F.NO.ACIT/ASSESSMENT/APPROVAL/MITTAL/2011-12 DATE D: 22.12.2011 TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-KATNI KATNI(MP) SUB: REPLY TO YOUR LETTER REGARDING APPROVAL OF DRA FT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A/143(3) IN CASE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEE OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI- REG. REF: YOUR LETTER F.NO.JCIT/R-KATNI/MITTAL GROUP/11- 12 DATED 21/12/2011 SIR PLEASE REFER TO ABOVE IN THIS CONNECTION MOST RESP ECTFULLY AND MOST HUMBLY AT MY END I SEE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE KIND CONSIDERATION OF YOUR HONOR THAT: 1. DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN TO ME ARE NOT CLEAR REGARDING TO WHICH PARTICULAR CASE AND TO WHICH PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR SAME ARE ISSUED FOR NOT MAKING ADDITION? 2. AS PER MANUAL OF OFFICE PROCEDURE IT IS AN ESTABLI SHED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE THAT IN CASE WHERE THE ADD ITIONS AS PROPOSED BY INVESTIGATION WING ARE CONSIDERED UNWA RRANTED BY THE AO THEN INVESTIGATION WING HAS TO BE CONSULTED COM PULSORILY. IT IS PRESUMED THAT NECESSARY CONSULTATION HAS BEEN MADE. IF SO PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE COPY OF MINUTES RECORDED OF THIS CON SULTATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION WING. 3. YOU ARE AWARE THAT AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE I HAVE EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT ALONG WITH THE SUB MISSION AND GONE THROUGH ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASES AND THE F INDINGS ARE BASED ON CONCRETE EVIDENCE GATHERED BY ME DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AS GATHERED BY INVESTIGA TING WING DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE COPY OF DIRECTIONS ADDRESSED BY YOU TO ME IS WI THOUT ANY DAK NUMBER AND THE PHOTOCOPY OF SOME ORIGINAL LETTER W HICH HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY ME TILL NOW. IT IS REQUESTED YOUR HONOR TO PROVIDE ME ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SAME. 5. SINCE THE DIRECTIONS ARE NOT CLEAR I AM WITHHOLDING THE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS TILL THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED. I WOULD SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 34 ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE TIME BARRING DATE IN SAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS IS 31/12/2011. HENCE YOU ARE REQUESTED TO IS SUE CLEAR DIRECTIONS IN EACH AND EVERY CASE ASSESSMENT YEAR W ISE. YOURS SINCERELY DATE: 22/12/2011 (SANJAY KUMAR) ACIT-KATNI OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ICOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI KATNI(MP) F.NO.ACIT-KTE/MITTAL /153D APPROVAL/ CAMP- JABALPUR DATED THE 22DECE. 2011 TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE KATNI AT JABALPUR. (BY NAME) SIR SUB:-APPROVAL OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A/14 3(3) IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES OF MITTAL GROUP KATNI.. REGARDI NG- REF:- YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO.JCIT/R-KATNI/MITTAL GRO UP/11-12 DATED 20.12.2011- ADDRESSED TO CIT-II JABALPUR AND COPY E NDORSED TO ME & DATED 21/12/2011 ADDRESSED TO ME AND COPY TO CIT-II JABAL PUR-CLARIFICATION- REGARDING- PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. IT MAY BE CLARIFIED THAT TILL 20/12/2011 IN 21 CASE S DRAFT ORDERS WERE SUBMITTED TO YOUR OFFICE. HOWEVER FROM THE LETTER ADDRESS TO ME I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT IS WHETHER APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 153 D OR DIRECTIONS TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENTS. PLEASE CLARIFY ASSESSEE WISE AND A SSESSMENT YEAR WISE. 2. AS REGARD THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF SMT. SARL A MITTAL ONE OF THE MEMBER OF MITTAL FAMILY IT WAS CLEARLY STATED BEFORE YOUR HO NOUR AND ALSO BEFORE SHRI LALIT MITTAL AND RN MITTAL CA THAT THE AMOUNTS OF RS.13 00 000/- WAS THE SHARES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE RELEVANT CO MPANIES TO VARIOUS FICTITIOUS PERSONS OF DELHI AND KOLKATTA THE IDENT ITY OF THESE PERSONS (COMPANIES) COULD NOT BE TRACED BY THE INVESTIGATIO N WING DURING THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRY AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE LETTERS I SSUED BY ME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 35 'NO SUCH ADDRESSEE'. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THOSE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE MITTAL FAMILY IN LATER YEAR S. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SUCH SHARE CERTIFICATES TRANSFER FORMS POWER OF A TTORNEY ETC. WERE SEIZED AND ALL THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FORMED PART OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE POSITION THE SHARES SOLD IN A PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR AND CLAIMED TO HAVE REPURCHASED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE TREATED AS T HE INVESTMENT OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THIS IS TH E POSITION IN RESPECT OF ALL HUFS & INDIVIDUALS. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE AMOUNTS WERE FOUND CREDITED IN THEIR ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC CLARIFICATION STILL YOU ARE IN VIEW O F NOT MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS THE SAME BE CLARIFIED. 3. ONE OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY YOU IS REGARDING SHA RE CAPITAL IN VARIOUS GROUP COMPANIES OF MITTAL GROUP-IT MAY BE MADE CLEAR THAT TILL 19/12/2011 THE CASES WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING NO DRAFT ORDERS IN CASES O F COMPANIES WERE FURNISHED. IN THAT SITUATION WITHOUT GOING TO THE MERIT OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER HOW A PRUDENT PERSON CAN DECIDE WHAT ADDITIONS ARE TO BE MADE OR OTHERWISE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED ERE THAT ON THIS ISSUE DURING THE PER SONAL DISCUSSION YOUR HONOUR HAD ADVISED ME TO REFER THE DECISION OF THE ITAT INDORE IN THE CASE OF AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION WHEREIN THE CASE LAWS SUGG ESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN THE PRESENT LETTER YOU HAD QUOTED HAVE BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED AND HELD THAT MERELY FILING OF PAN COPY OF RETURN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IN VIEW OF YOUR ADVICE AND FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF ITAT INDORE BENCH SUCH ADDITIONS WERE MADE. 4. ANOTHER POINT RAISED IS FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS IN THE CASES OF ANKIT/NOVAS/NIPPON. IT MAY BE CLARIFIED THAT THE CA SE OF NIPPON IS NEITHER ASSESSED AT KATNI NOR WHERE IT IS BEING ASSESSED HA S GIVEN BY MITTAL. AS REGARDS THIS I WANT TO SAY THAT THE ISSUE OF NIPPON IS BEYO ND THE JURISDICTION. AS REGARDS THE ANKIT & NOVAS THE DRAFT ORDER IS YET TO BE FIN ALIZED AND THE DECISION IS STILL PENDING AT MY END DUE TO THE FACT THAT ON 20/12/201 1 DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION IT WAS TOLD TO ME THAT THE MATTER IS BE ING REFERRED TO DI(INV.) FOR CLARIFICATION. ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE CLARIFICATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NEEDS TO BE FINALIZED. IT MAY FURTHER BE STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF ANKIT TRACOM PVT. LTD. THE STANDING COUNSEL HAD INFORMED TELEPHONICALLY TH AT PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS STAYED. HOWEVER IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT AS SESSMENT ORDER MAY BE PREPARED AND NOT TO BE RELEASED. 5 INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THESE JEWELLERY ITEMS LINKED TO LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAM E OF SHRI KALE- FIRST OF ALL I MAY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF JEWELLERY WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURITY OF GOLD I.E. THE GOLD JEWELLERY P URCHASED/POSSESSED HAVING PURITY OF 79.96 AND WHEN IT WAS SOLD THE PURITY WA S AROUND 90. SOME OF THE JEWELLERY WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY GIFT FROM VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE NAME OF THE PERSON OR THE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY THOSE PERSONS GIFTED THE JEWELLERY. IN THAT SITUATION IN MY VIEW EXCEPT TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49(1) I HAVE NO OTHER ALTERN ATIVE. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS REQUESTED THAT SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN TO EXCL UDE THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF JEWELLERY PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF PURITY AND DATE O F ACQUISITION. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 36 AS REGARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF MR K ALE IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN AN Y DETAIL. IN SHORT THE POINT IS CLARIFIED AS- MR. KALE IS AN ADIVASI AND AS PER THE GOVT. GUIDELINES THE LAND OF ADIVASIS CANNOT BE PURCHASED BY ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT ADIVASI (EXCEPT SOME EXCEPTIONAL CASES.)IN THIS CASE THE MITTAL FA MILY PURCHASED LANDS OF ADIVASIS IN THE NAME OF MR. KALE AND LATER ON GOT T RANSFERRED AS PER THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS A WELL SETTLED FAC T THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN BENAMI NAME CANNOT BE FROM KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME. WHEN LATER ON TRANSFERRED INTO ASSESSEE'S NAME THE AMOUNT IS BEI NG TRANSFERRED TO MR. KALE'S ACCOUNT AND WITHDRAWN AND UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE NEITHER THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS INVESTED EARLIER OUT OF UNACCOUNTED SOURCES WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX NOR ARE TH E PERSONS INTRODUCING THE CAPITAL BY WAY OF GIFT PAYING TAX ON SUCH AMOUNT. T HEREFORE IT WAS HELD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY WHICH W AS USED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS BROUGHT ON ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE INVESTM ENT IN JEWELLERY WAS THOUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THIS YEAR. IF THE DECISION O F MINE IS WRONG PLEASE CLARIFY. 6. ISSUE RELATED TO SALE OF LAND HAVING DOLOMITE MI NES THOUGH ROUTES OF SALE/PURCHASE OF SHARES OF THE COMPANY- IN MY KNOWL EDGE NO SUCH ISSUE HAD CAME TO ANY OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERS SUBMITTE D TO YOU. IT APPEARS THAT ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE RAISED BY YOUR HONOUR AS PER T HE VERSION OF MR. LALIT MITTAL AND SHRI RN MITTA CA. 7. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION REGARDING EXCAVATION AND CARTAGE CHARGES- THE MATTER RELATES TO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND NON-DEBITING O F EXPENSES BASED ON VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS; STATEMENTS OF VARIOUS EMP LOYEES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND POST SEA RCH ENQUIRIES. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS. 8. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE LETTER DATED 21/12/2011 IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SUBMITTED TO YOUR OFFICE WAS APPR OVED OR OTHERWISE UNDER SEC.153D OR THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE UNDER SEC.144A. 9. AS PER THE APPRAISAL REPORT THE PROPOSED ADDITI ONS WERE MORE THAN 125 CRORES AND IF THERE IS MAJOR DEVIATION FROM SUCH PR OPOSAL AS PER INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BOARD DEVIATION REPORT SHOULD BE FURNISHED TO THE INVESTIGATION WING. FROM YOUR ABOVE REFERRED LETTER IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHE R ANY DEVIATION REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO THE INVESTIGATION WING OR NOT. THIS MA Y ALSO BE MADE CLEAR TO ME SO THAT WITH THE SHORT TIME SPAN I COULD COMPLETE THE SEARCH & SEIZURE ASSESSMENTS. 10. IT MAY BE MADE CLEAR THAT RECENTLY MY SISTER-IN LAW(BHABHI) EXPIRED ON 21' DEC.2011 AND DUE TO THESE TIME BARRING CASES I COU LD NOT EVEN SEE HER DURING HER ALLING TIME OR OTHERWISE TO ATTEND THE FUNERAL WHICH WAS HELD ON 22/12/2011. AT THE SAME TIME MY MOTHER WAS ALREADY A PARALYTIC PATIENT AND RECENTLY SUFFERED A SECOND PARALYTIC ATTACK. 10. IT MAY FURTHER BE STATED HERE THAT THE VALUATIO N REPORTS IN THE CASES OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITITAL MP MINERALS AND MITTAL ROADWAY S WERE RECEIVED RECENTLY AND THE ASSESEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THEIR OBJECTIONS TO SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 37 THE PROPOSED VALUATION. ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE OBJE CTIONS THESE CASES COULD BE FINALIZED. AT THE END IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT ALL THE ASSESSMENTS IN MITTAL GROUP ARE GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31/12/201 1 KEEPING IN VIEW THE PECULIAR SITUATION MAY I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY ISS UE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS WHETHER TO MAINTAIN THE ADDITION OR TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS PROPOSED. YOURS FAITHFULLY (SANJAY KUMAR) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE KTNI. 11. FROM THE ABOVE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE A.O. ON ONE HAND AND THE JCIT ON THE OTHER HAND AND THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE JCIT TO THE COMMISSIONER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS AT THE STAGE OF DISCUSSION AND THE JCIT COULD NOT ABLE TO MAKE HIS MIND. ULTIMATELY HE SIMPLY SAYS THAT DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS HE WAS HOLDING CHARGES FOR S IX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO GO INTO THE MATERIAL DEEP THER EFORE HE APPROVED THE PROPOSAL TECHNICALLY AS REQUIRED U/S 153D OF THE AC T IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE AO BRINGS TO HIS NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS GETTING TIME BARRED. 12. FROM THE ABOVE COMMUNICATIONS IT IS OBVIOUS TH AT THE JCIT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE A.O. AND JCIT THE JCIT COULD NOT MAKE HIS MIND. HENCE THIS KIND OF CASUAL APPROVAL/TECHNICAL APPROVAL WITHOUT GOING TO THE MA TTER AND WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD IS NOT AN APPROVAL AT ALL. THEREFORE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY A.O. AS CONFIRMED BY C.I.T.(A) IS VOID NULLITY NON-EST HENCE CANNOT BE STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 38 13. AN IRREGULARITY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE RECTIFIED BY REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE ON H AND IT IS NOT AN IRREGULARITY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS A JURIS DICTIONAL ERROR. THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UN LESS THE JCIT GRANTED APPROVAL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THIS IS NOT A RECTIFIABLE ERROR SINCE IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ERRO R AND NOT AN IRREGULARITY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. MOREOVER EVEN IF THE MA TTER IS REMITTED BACK THE AO CANNOT DO ANYTHING BETTER SINCE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT HAS ALREADY EXPIRED. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS UN ABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS O F BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE SET-ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS CONFIRMED BY C.I.T.(A) ARE QUASHED. 14. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.2021. (AS PER MY SEPARATE ASSENT ORDER) (SD/-) SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04 /03/2021 SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 39 IN RE: SARIKA MITTAL & ORS. V. ASST. CIT (IT(SS)A NOS. 12 TO 14/JAB/2018 & ORS.) 1. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PROPOSED BY MY LD. BROT HER JM AND AM PRINCIPALLY IN AGREEMENT THEREWITH IN THAT THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENTS FAIL FOR WANT OF THE NECESSARY APPROVAL U/S. 153D. MY RE ASONS FOR THE SAME TAKE A DIFFERENT TRAJECTORY AND ACCORDINGLY ARE B EING STATED PER A SEPARATE ASSENT ORDER WHICH IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WI TH THE SAID ORDER. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY O F THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS IN VIEW OF THE APPROVAL U/S. 153D OF TH E ACT DATED 26/12/2011 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR ( JT. CIT FOR SHORT). SECTION 153D READS AS UNDER: 153D. PRIOR APPROVAL NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT IN CA SES OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE PAS SED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153B EXCE PT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. (E MPHASIS SUPPLIED) THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE APPROVAL LETTER AFORE-REF ERRED READS AS UNDER: DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME AS HOLDING CHARGE OF SIX RANGES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GO INTO THE DEEP THEREFORE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT O RDERS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES SUBMITTED BY YOU ARE HEREBY APPROVED U/S. 153D AS P ER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. CASE RECORDS AS RECEIVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE SAID AP PROVAL HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL REPRODUCING THE COMMUNICATIONS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE JT. CIT THE APPROVING/COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KATNI (ASST. CIT FOR SHORT) THE AS SESSING OFFICER (AO) IN THE ORDER BY MY LD. BROTHER. THE SAME CANNOT BY ANY SCORE BE REGARDED AS A VALID APPROVAL. IT IS NOT A CASE OF NON-APPLIC ATION OF MIND A QUESTION SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 40 OF FACT AS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI GHAI WOULD CONTEND BEFORE US BUT OF IT BEING INDEED ONE I.E. AN APPROVAL I N LAW TO WHICH THE ANSWER MUST CLEARLY BE IN THE NEGATIVE. AS THE EXCHANGE AF ORE-REFERRED COUPLED WITH THE LETTER DATED 20/12/2011 BY THE JT. CIT TO THE AO (FORMING PART OF THE PAPER-BOOK BY THE REVENUE FURNISHED ON 03/02/20 21) SHOWS THE APPROVING AUTHORITY ON PERUSING THE RECORDS AND AP PLYING HIS MIND TO THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT/S FINDS HIMSELF UNABLE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER/S AS SUCH. HE HOWEVER INST EAD OF REQUIRING THE AO TO MAKE CHANGE/S THEREIN AS DEEMED PROPER OR TIME PERMITTING EVEN REQUIRING HIM TO FOR THE PURPOSE UNDERTAKE INQUIR Y ON THE LINES HE CONSIDERS NECESSARY CITES THE REASONS OF OVERLOAD OF WORK AND PAUCITY OF TIME AND GRANTS WHAT HE CALLS TECHNICAL APPRO VALS. HOW ONE WONDERS COULD HE DO SO I.E. IN LAW BEING OBLIGED THEREBY TO AND EVEN AS REQUIRED OF HIM BY THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22/12/2011 EITHER AGREE WITH THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ADVISE NECESSARY CHANGES THEREIN BEFORE ACCORDING HIS APPROVAL. THIS IS AS THE LAW CONTEMPL ATES AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ONLY UPON HIS APPROVAL A ND OF COURSE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREFOR. THAT HIS DIRECTIONS T O THE AO IN THE MATTER WERE NOT IN CLEAR TERMS AND BESIDES DID RAISE CON CERNS NOT ADDRESSED IS THE SUBSTANCE OF AOS LETTER DATED 22/12/2011 TO TH E JT. CIT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PASSED THE SAID NON-APPROVAL BEING MANIFEST FROM THE ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL CAN THEREFORE ONLY B E REGARDED AS NOT BEARING HIS APPROVAL. 3. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE APPROVAL CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INVALID ONLY FOR WANT OF THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAVING AS CLEARLY STATED THEREIN NOT GO NE INTO DEPTH I.E. AS MUCH AS HE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE I.E. WITHOUT THE TIME CONSTRAINT PREFERRED TO THAT BEING ITSELF A SUBJECTIVE MATTER WHICH WOULD VARY FROM SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 41 PERSON TO PERSON. RATHER AS THE COMMUNICATIONS EXC HANGED BETWEEN THE TWO AUTHORITIES WOULD REVEAL THERE WAS CONSIDERATI ON OF AND APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT/S. IT MAY TOWARD THIS BE RELEVANT TO TRAVERSE THE PR OVISION CONSIDERING IT IN LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT LEADING TO IT S ENACTMENT. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153D WAS BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE-BOOK BY FIN ANCE ACT 2007 W.E.F. 01.6.2007. THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF ITS INSERTION HA S BEEN ELABORATED IN BOARD CIRCULAR 3/2008 DATED 12.3.2008. IT STATES O F THE LAW PROVIDING THUS FOR AN APPROVAL OF AN ASSESSMENT IN CASES WHERE SEA RCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION MADE. NOT MUCH GUIDANCE ALSO FLOWS F ROM THE NOTES ON CLAUSES EXPLAINING THE STATUTORY CHANGE; THE SECTIO NS 153A TO 153C HAVING BEEN INSERTED ON THE STATUTE-BOOK BY FINANCE ACT 2 003 W.E.F. 01/4/2003. A REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144A AND SIN CE OMITTED SECTION 144B REVEAL THEM AND EVEN AS EXPLAINED BY THE HON BLE COURTS TO BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A PRE-ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND A F ORUM TO AN ASSESSEE TO KNOW THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ORDER BE FORE THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT IS MADE AND HE SADDLED WITH A PECUNIARY LIABILITY RESULTING FROM IT. THE OBJECT APPEARS TO BE TO AVOID MULTIPLI CITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND TO REDUCE THE AREA OF DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES AND THE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO TO PROVIDE FOR A CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST ARB ITRARY ASSESSMENTS CAUSING UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT WHICH COULD OTHERWI SE BE AVOIDED [ BHAGWAT PRASAD V. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 480 (ALL)]. THE BOARD CIRCULARS ISSUED QUA THE SAID SECTIONS HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SAME TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS AS WELL AS STRENGTHENING THE MACHINERY FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS AS WELL AS INSPECTION OF ASSESSMENT CHARGES. IN RECENT TIMES THE CONCEPT OF LIMITED SCRUTINY HAS ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO FOCUS THE RESOU RCES OF THE REVENUE ON TARGETED ISSUES WITH AN INBUILT FLEXIBILITY FOR EN HANCING THE SCOPE OF SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 42 ASSESSMENT IN DESERVING CASES BY FOLLOWING THE PR OCEDURE PRESCRIBED THEREFOR AGAIN CLEARLY WITH THE SAME INTENT AND TOWARD THE SAME END. CONSIDERED IN THIS BACKDROP THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND S. 153D COULD BE NO DIFFERENT OR AT LEAST MATERIALLY SO. I N FACT THE NEED FOR FRAMING A BALANCED ASSESSMENT I.E. PROVIDING A CHECK ON T HE ARBITRARY USE OF POWER THROUGH HIGH PITCHED ASSESSMENTS AS WELL AS TO STR ENGTHEN THE INTERNAL MONITORING AND REVIEW SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT IS IMPERATIVE AND CANNOT BE OVER-EMPHASIZED. IT APPEARS THAT INASMUCH AS NO PRE-DECISIONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEES AS IN SS. 144A/144B HAS BEEN PRO VIDED IN SECTION 153D ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF TH E ASSESSMENTS IN SEARCH AND SEARCH-RELATED CASES. THIS PERHAPS ALSO EXPLAIN S THE ABSOLUTE BAR ON THE ISSUE OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT WITHOU T PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE RANGE HEAD IN SUCH CASES. WHERE THEREFORE THE APP ROVING AUTHORITY STATES OF BEING CONSTRAINED FOR TIME TO GO INTO THE DEPTH OF THE MATTER IT ONLY INDICATES HIS NON-SATISFACTION WITH THE DRAFT ORDER . THAT THIS NON- SATISFACTION OBTAINS DESPITE HIS EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT/S MAKES IT ALL THE MORE RELEVANT. THE SA ME RESULTS FROM HIS APPLICATION OF MIND AND NOT OTHERWISE. AT THE SAME TIME HE USING THE SAME PHRASE IN ALL THE APPROVALS GIVEN AT THE SAME TIME IT COULD AND AS IT APPEARS THAT WHILE HE HAD GONE INTO SOME DEPTH IN SOME CASES THOUGH NOT SATISFIED THEREWITH HE MIGHT NOT HAVE IN OTHERS AN D OVERWHELMED BY THE VOLUME OF WORK INVOLVED IN THE SHORT SPAN OF TIME A VAILABLE RECUSED HIMSELF SO TO SPEAK BY ISSUING TECHNICAL APPRO VALS. EITHER WAY THE OBJECT AND INTENT OF THE LAW GETS DEFEATED . NOTHING THEREFORE TURNS IN LAW ON THE FACT OF DELIBERATIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSING AND THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY WHICH MS. PRADHAN THE LD. CIT-DR WAS AT PAINS TO EMPHASIZE BEFORE US AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER/S THAT CAME TO B E FINALLY PASSED CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AN APPROVED ORDER/S BEING APPROVED AS APPARENT TO MEET SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 43 IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL! IT IS ALSO NOT OPEN FOR THIS TRIBUNA L TO TRAVEL BEYOND THE EXPRESS STATEMENT BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN THE APPROVAL LETTER AND TO UPON A REVIEW OF THE CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED ( INCLUDING THE MATERIAL REFERRED TO THEREIN) BETWEEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE APPROVING AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OR BEEN NOT SATISFIED. IT IS HIS AND HIS SATISFACTION ALONE THAT IS RELEV ANT AND DOING SO WOULD BE TO INTRUDE UPON AND USURP HIS SUPERVISORY POWER AND DUTY WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT FRAMING OF WHICH IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE REVENUE. IT IS EQUALLY IMPERMISSIBLE TO QUESTION THE BONA FIDES OF THE APPROVAL AS GIVEN OR THE TRUTHFULNESS OF WHAT IS STATED IN THE APPRO VAL LETTER OR INDEED IN THE AOS LETTER DATED 22/12/2011 (SUPRA) SEEKING CLARIF ICATIONS. 4. THE QUESTION OF DUE APPLICATION OF MIND WHICH I S OFTEN RAISED BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES IN SUCH-LIKE SITUATI ONS AS INDEED WAS IN THE INSTANT CASE IT MAY BE CLARIFIED HERE ARISES FOR REVIEW ONLY FROM THE LIMITED STAND-POINT OF WHETHER THE CONDITION/S OF T HE SECTION OR THE PROVISION IS MET AND NOT BEYOND. A PARALLEL IN THI S REGARD MAY BE DRAWN TO THE RECORDING OF THE REASON/S TO BELIEVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM TAX BY THE AO PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A REASSESSMENT NOTICE. THE PURVIEW OF AN APPELLATE COURT AS IS WELL-SETTLED IS LIMITED TO ASCERTAINING THE EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE OF A LIVE LINK OR A RATIONAL NEXUS BET WEEN THE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND HIS HONEST BELIEF AS TO THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FROM ASSESSMENT. THE VERACITY OF THIS MATERIAL/INFORMATION AS LONG AS I T IS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE CANNOT BE EXAMINED AT THE STAGE OF ASSUMPTION OF JU RISDICTION FOR REASSESSMENT; THE SCOPE BEING THE RELEVANCY OF THE REASON/S RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSE WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINING THE VALIDITY THEREOF. APPLICATION OF SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 44 MIND BY THE AO BECOMES A NECESSARY INGREDIENT TOWAR D THIS. SUFFICIENCY OF REASON/S WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE REALM OF THE SU BJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE GONE INTO. FURTHER EVEN THIS THE COURT DOES NOT TO REVIEW THE MANNER OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF R EASSESSMENT PER SE BUT ONLY TO SEE AS TO WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW P ROVIDING A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE SAID POWER HAS B EEN MET OR NOT. IN THE INSTANT CASE/S AS WELL IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT MAT TER WHERE THE JT. CIT HAD ISSUED SOME DIRECTION/S TO THE AO SUBJECT TO AND O N THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ACCORDS HIS APPROVAL. IT WILL NOT IN THAT CASE BE OPEN FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO REVIEW THE SAME OR SIT IN JUDGMENT THEREON. NO C RITERION FOR APPROVAL EXCEPT OF COURSE HIS SATISFACTION WITH THE DRAFT OR DER WHICH IS IN FACT IMPLICIT AS OTHERWISE THE EXERCISE (OF APPROVAL) ITSELF WOULD BE RENDERED MEANINGLESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. THE REQUISITE OF DUE APPLICATION OF MIND IS ALSO TOWARD THIS SATISFACTI ON INASMUCH AS THERE COULD BE CIRCUMSTANCES AS INDEED HAVE BEEN FOUND B Y THE APPELLATE COURTS AS IN TARACHAND KHATRI V. ASST. CIT (IN ITA NO. 21/JAB/2019 DATED 17/01/2020) OF THERE BEING IN FACT NO SATISF ACTION INASMUCH AS THE SAME COULD NOT ARISE UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES AS FOR EXAMPLE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES AND ANOMALIES IN THE APPROVED ASSESSMENT ORDER. NEEDLESS TO ADD THIS AGAIN CAN B E EXAMINED BY THE COURTS ONLY FROM THE STAND-POINT OF A PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. 5. THE QUESTION THAT ARISES NEXT FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH AN APPROVAL I.E. WHICH CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ONE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WITHOUT DOUBT THERE HAS BEEN THUS IN FACT NON- COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 153D OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIO N CAST IN NEGATIVE TERMS COUPLED WITH THE USE OF WORD SHALL CLARIF IES A MANDATORY INTENT LAW ON WHICH IS WELL-SETTLED (SEE: MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY CO. V. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 45 NORMADIN [1917] A.C. 170 RELIED UPON AND APPLIED IN TO CIT E SOME HAZARI MAL KATHULIA V. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC) AND BHAKTA VEDANTA SWAMI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT (IN WP(C) 12347/2005 DATED 09/5/2006 (ORISSA)). 5.1 AN ISSUE THAT CAME UP IN THIS REGARD DURING HEA RING WAS OF THE APPROVAL BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL LACK OF WHICH MAY THEREFORE NOT BE FATAL TO THE ASSESSMENT. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THIS ASPECT AS WANT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION EVEN AS CLARIFIED IN STATE OF UP V. MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA [1958] SCR 533 AND K.S. SRINIVASAN V. UOI [1958] SCR 1295 1321 NOTED WITH APPROVAL IN HAZARI MAL KATHULIA (SUPRA) MAY NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTS DONE. IN THE FACTS OF THE LATTER CASE THE COMMISSIONER HAD FAILED TO CONSULT THE CENTRAL BOAR D OF REVENUE WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PATIALA INCOME TAX ACT AS HE HAD PROCEEDED UNDER THE INDIA N INCOME TAX ACT WHERE-UNDER NO SUCH CONSULTATION WAS NECESSARY. THI S NON-CONSULTATION WAS HELD AS PROOF AGAINST THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULA RITY OF OFFICIAL ACTS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS ORDE R. THE APEX COURT REPELLED THE CHARGE HOLDING THE PROVISION AS DIREC TORY AS FOLLOWS: (PGS. 16-17) THE PROVISION ABOUT CONSULTATION MUST BE TREATED A S DIRECTORY ON THE PRINCIPLES ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT IN STATE OF U.P. VS. MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA [1958] S.C.R. 533 AND K.S. SRINIVASAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [1958[ S.C.R. 1295. IN THE FORMER CASE THIS COURT DEALT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 320(3) (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION UNDER WHICH CONSULTATION WITH THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE CO MMISSION WAS NECESSARY. THIS COURT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY CO. VS. NORMANDIN (1917) A.C. 170 WHERE IT WAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '.....THE QUESTION WHETHER PROVISIONS IN A STATUTE ARE DIRECTORY OR IMPERATIVE HAS VERY FREQUENTLY ARISEN IN THIS COUNTRY BUT IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT NO GENERAL RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN AND THAT IN EVERY CASE THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE MUST BE LOOKED AT. THE CASES ON THE SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND COLLECTED IN MAX WELL ON STATUTES 5TH EDN. P. 596 AND FOLLOWING PAGES. WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF A STATU TE RELATE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC DUTY AND THE CASE IS SUCH THAT TO HOLD NULL AND VOID ACTS DONE IN NEGLECT OF SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 46 THIS DUTY WOULD WORK SERIOUS GENERAL INCONVENIENCE OR INJUSTICE TO PERSONS WHO HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY AND AT THE SAME TIME WOULD NOT PROMOTE THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATURE IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE TO HOLD SUCH PROVISIONS TO BE DIRECTORY ONLY THE NEGLECT OF THE M THOUGH PUNISHABLE NOT AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTS DONE.' THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL CASE WAS ALSO AP PLIED BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN BISWANATH KHEMKA VS. KING EMPEROR [1945] F.C.R. 99 AND THERE AS POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT THE WORDS OF THE PROVISI ON WERE EVEN MORE EMPHATIC AND OF A PROHIBITORY CHARACTER. THE ESSENCE OF THE RULE IS THAT WHERE CONSULTATION HAS TO BE MADE DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC DUTY AND AN OMISSION TO DO SO OCCURS THE ACTION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ALTOGETHER VOID A ND THE DIRECTION FOR CONSULTATION MAY BE TREATED AS DIRECTORY AND ITS NEGLECT AS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE RESULT. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THESE CASES THE FAIL URE TO CONSULT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE DOES NOT DESTROY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT HOWEVER WRONG IT MIGHT BE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE P OINT OF VIEW . THE POWER WHICH THE CIT HAD WAS ENTRUSTED TO HIM AND THERE WAS ON LY A DUTY TO CONSULT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE. THE FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE DUT Y DID NOT ROB THE CIT OF THE POWER WHICH HE EXERCISED AND THE EXERCISE OF THE P OWER CANNOT THEREFORE BE QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO CONSULT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE PROVISION REGARDING WHICH MUST BE REGARDED AS LAYIN G DOWN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL AND AS BEING DIRECTORY . 5.2 THE ISSUE NEVERTHELESS IS NOT RES INTEGRA ; THE DECISION IN CIT VS. MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR OF GIDHAUR [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC) AMONG OTHERS BEING ON THE POINT. IN THE FACTS OF T HAT CASE REASSESSMENT NOTICES U/S. 34 (CORRESPONDING TO SECTION 148(1) OF THE ACT) WERE ISSUED BY THE AO WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED T HEREFOR. THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON AUGUST 8 1948 WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS FOR DOING SO AND PUTTING THEM BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR HIS AP PROVAL. THERE WAS IN FACT NO SUCH REQUIREMENT IN LAW AS ON 08.8.1948 I. E. THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTICES. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY I.E. ON SEPTEM BER 8 1948 AN AMENDING ACT WAS PROMULGATED WHICH STIPULATED SUCH A REQUIREMENT BY WAY OF PROVISO TO THE AMENDED SECTION READING AS UNDER AND WHIC H WAS GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM MARCH 30 1948: ( PG. 423) PROVIDED THAT (1) THE ITO SHALL NOT ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION UNLESS HE HAS RECORDED HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO AND THE COMMISSIONER IS SA TISFIED ON SUCH REASONS THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 47 THE ASSESSMENTS ON CHALLENGE WERE REGARDED AS NOT VALID FROM THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREAT THE ISSUE OF THEIR BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONWARDS. THE REVENUE REL YING ON SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897 THE APEX COURT HELD AS U NDER: (PGS. 423-425) THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NOTICES WHICH WERE ISSU ED WERE RENDERED VOID BY THE OPERATION OF THIS PROVISO. THE COMMISSIONER CON TENDS THAT SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT PARTICULARLY CLS. (B) AND (C) SAVED THE ASSESSMENTS AS WELL AS THE NOTICES. HE RELIES UPON A DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN JOHN LEMM VS. MITCHELL [1912] A.C. 400 EYRE VS. WYNN-MACKENZIE [1896] 1 CH. 135 AND BUTCHER VS. HENDERSON [1868] LR 3 QBD 335 IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSITION. THE LAST TWO CASES HAVE NO BEARING UPON THIS MATTER BUT STRONG RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON THE PRIVY COUNCIL CASE. IN THAT CASE THE EARLIER ACTION WHIC H HAD BEEN COMMENCED WHEN THE ORDINANCE HAD ABROGATED THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR CRI MINAL CONVERSATION HAD ALREADY ENDED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT AND NO APPEAL THER EFROM WAS PENDING AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE REVIVAL OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR CR IMINAL CONVERSATION DID NOT INVEST THE PLAINTIFF WITH A RIGHT TO BEGIN AN ACTION AGAIN AND THUS EXPOSE THE DEFENDANT TO A DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT UNLESS THE STATUT E EXPRESSLY AND BY DEFINITE WORDS GAVE HIM THAT RIGHT. THE PRIVY COUNCIL CASE IS THUS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. NO DOUBT UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES AC T IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY ACT REPEALS ANY ENACTMENT THEN UNLESS A DIFFERENT INTENTION APPEARS THE REPEAL SHALL NOT AFFECT THE PREVIOUS OPERATION OF A NY ENACTMENT SO REPEALED OR ANYTHING DULY DONE THEREUNDER OR AFFECT ANY RIGHT OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY ACQUIRED ACCRUED OR INCURRED UNDER ANY ENACTMENT SO REPEALED . IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS MAY BE CONTINUED OR ENFORCED AS I F THE REPEALING ACT HAD NOT BEEN PASSED. NOW IF THE AMENDING ACT HAD REPEALED THE O RIGINAL SECTION 34 AND MERELY ENACTED A NEW SECTION IN ITS PLACE THE REPEAL MIGH T NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE OPERATION OF THE ORIGINAL SECTION BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 6. BUT THE AMENDING ACT GOES FURTHER THAN THIS. IT REPEALS THE ORIGINAL SECTION 34 NOT FROM THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACT RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL BUT FRO M A STATED DAY VIZ. MARCH 30 1948 AND SUBSTITUTES IN ITS PLACE ANOTHER SECTION CONTAINING THE PROVISO ABOVEMENTIONED. THE AMENDING ACT PROVIDES THAT THE AMENDING SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE COME INTO FORCE ON MARCH 30 1948 A ND THUS BY THIS RETROSPECTIVITY INDICATES A DIFFERENT INTENTION WHICH EXCLUDES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 6. IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THE NOTICES WERE ALL ISSUED ON AUGUST 8 1948 WHEN ON THE STATUTE BOOK MUST BE DEEMED TO BE EXISTING AN ENACTMENT ENJOININ G A DUTY UPON THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO OBTAIN PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONE R AND UNLESS THAT APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE ISSUED. THE NOTI CES WERE THUS INVALID. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH WAS APPLIED BY THIS COURT IN VENKATACHALAM VS. BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD . [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC) IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE . NO QUESTION OF LAW WAS RAISED BEFORE US AS IT COUL D NOT BE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN Y. NARAYANA CHETTY VS. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC) THAT THE PROVISO WAS NOT MANDATORY IN CHARACTER. INDEED THERE WAS TIME ENOUGH FOR FRESH NOTICES TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND WE FAIL TO SEE WHY THE OLD NOTICES WERE NOT RECALLED AND FRESH ONES ISSUED. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 48 FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE HIG H COURT IN THE ANSWERS GIVEN AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS. TRUE IT IS NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE AS IN MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR (SUPRA) RESULTING IN THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN WITHOUT SUCH A NOTICE OR IN PURSUANCE OF AN INVALID SUCH NO TICE BEING VOID AND ILLEGAL AND THE ASSESSMENTS IN CONSEQUENCE WITHO UT JURISDICTION WHICH IS UNDER QUESTION IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE APPROVAL U/S. 153D AS AFORE- NOTED IS PRIMARILY TOWARDS SAFEGUARDING THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE IN SEARCH AND SEARCH-RELATED CASES GIVING IT A MANDAT ORY STATUS. IT THUS BECOMES AS MUCH INTEGRAL TO THE PROCEDURE FOR ASSES SMENT AS IS THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT . AND FURTHER IN DISCHARGE OF HIS QUASI- JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS BY THE JT. CIT WHO AS THE RANGE HEAD H AS BEEN FOR THE PURPOSE ALLOWED THE REQUISITE POWERS (SEE SS. 2(7A) 120(4) 124(5) 131 132 133). THERE IS THUS NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN SECTION 153D THE SCOPE OF WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND AS TOWARD IMPROVING T HAT QUALITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS BY PROVIDING FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BY THE SUPERVISORY HEAD (REFER PARA 3) AND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE JT. CIT U NDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER/S IN THE INSTANT CASE PASSED IN B REACH OF THE QUALIFYING MANDATORY CONDITION OF ITS PASSING I.E. AN APPROV AL U/S. 153D IS AN INVALID ORDER/S TO WHICH NO COGNIZANCE IN LAW CAN BE GIVEN. THE PLEA OF THE APPROVAL THEREUNDER BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL/ACTION IS THUS TO NO MOMENT. AS EXPLAINED IN PANCHAMAHAL STEEL LTD. V. ITO [1997] 225 ITR 458 (SC) IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 144B THE AO B ECOMES PRACTICALLY FUNCTUS OFFICIO AFTER FORWARDING THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS TO THE APPROVING AUTHORITY A ND IS TO THEREAFTER ONLY FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS BY THE LATTER WHICH HE CANNO T VARY OR DEPART FROM. HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVISED RETURN BY THE ASSESSE E THEREAFTER EVEN THOUGH FURNISHED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD STIPULATED BY LAW THEREFOR WAS SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 49 ACCORDINGLY DISAPPROVED BY THE HONBLE COURT EXPLA INING THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 139(5) FOR FURNISHING A REVISED R ETURN IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND CONSTRUED IN A REASONABLE MANNER. SURE TIME PERMITTING IT IS OPEN FOR THE AO TO AS IN MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR (SUPRA) SEEK FRESH APPROVAL (U/S. 153D) AND ISSUE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MARKING THE CULMINATION OF THE P ROCESS OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. THIS IS AGAIN FOR THE SAME REASON; AN ORDER PASSED WITHOUT A VALID APPROVAL BEING OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN LAW. REFE RENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY ALSO BE MADE TO CIT V. RATANBAI N.K. DUBHASH [1998] 230 ITR 495 (BOM). THERE IS HOWEVER NO GAINSAYING THAT THE TIME CONSTRAINT AS STATED IN THE APPROVAL ITSELF IS THE REASON FOR ITS GRA NT IN THE MANNER IT HAS SO THAT THIS ASPECT BECOMES EVEN AS IN MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR (SUPRA) ACADEMIC. IN FACT THIS FACT ITSELF I.E. THE GRANT OF APPROVAL SO AS TO CIRCUMVENT THE TIME LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT IS I TSELF REASON ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE THE APPROVAL. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS A RE SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OTHER PRE-REQUISITE CONDI TIONS OF THE PROVISION NON-EST IN LAW. 5.3 IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO IN ALL THE CAS ES IS OF THE RANK OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER I.E. BELOW THE RANK OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. SIMILARLY THE YEAR OF SEARCH BEING F.Y. 2009-10 A LL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER REFERENCE I.E. AYS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 ARE THOSE SPECIFIED IN S. 153D. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER/S UNDER REFERENCE IS TH US NOT VALID IN LAW INASMUCH AS NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT COULD BE PASSED BY THE AO BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR ANY OF THE YEARS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 153D EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JT. C IT. SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 50 6. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS ORDER ONE CANNOT HELP NOTE THE IRONY OF THE SITUATION I.E. A MEASURE ADOPTED BY LAW TO PROTEC T THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN CRITICAL CASES SHOULD ITSELF BECOME THE REASON FOR THE DESTRUCTION THEREOF AN EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE INCID ENT. THIS COURT HOWEVER CANNOT DO ANYTHING BEYOND EXPRESSING ITS A NGUISH AT THE SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS WITH REGARD TO THE MANAGEMENT OF W ORK AS WELL AS THE COMMITMENT THERETO OF THE OFFICERS CONCERNED AND H OPE THAT THE REVENUE SO KEEN AND ANXIOUS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE A SSESSMENTS AND AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION TAKES STEPS TO PREVENT A RE CURRENCE WHICH HAS AN OPPOSITE EFFECT BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE MORALE OF ITS OFFICERS. WHERE ONE WONDERS WA S THE SCOPE FOR HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL BY THE JT. CIT IN THE SEC. 153D PROCEEDINGS? ONE CANNOT ALSO HELP MENTIONING HERE THE HARD WORK AND THE PAINSTAKING EFFORTS PUT IN BY THE AO WHICH IS COMMENDABLE INDE ED PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THE DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES HE WAS PLAC ED IN AT THE TIME. SD /- PLACE: JABALPUR (SANJAY ARORA) DATE: MARCH 04 2021 AM JABALPUR BENCH PATEL/P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : THE APPELLANTS: (I)SMT. SARIKA MITTAL (II) SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (III) SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (IV) SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) (V) SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (VI) SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) (VII) SHRI LALIT KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) (VIII) SMT. SEEMA MITTAL SMT. SARIKA MITTAL & ORS.IT(SS)A NOS.12 TO 14/JAB/2 014 & ORS 51 (IX) SMT. SATYA DEVI MITTAL (X) SMT. KAVITA MITTAL (XI) SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (XII) SHRI SURESH KUMAR MITTAL (HUF) (XIII) SMT. SARLA MITTAL (XIV) SHRI C.R. MITTAL & SONS (HUF) (XV) KATNI MINERALS PVT. LTD. (XVI) M.P MINERALS PVT. LTD. (XVII) MITTAL ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. (XVIII) MITTAL TRACTORS PVT. LTD. (XIX) PLM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (XX) V. K. TRACTORS & AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. (XXI) KATNI BAUXITE PVT. LTD. (XXII) TRACKWAY SECURITIES & FINANCE PVT. LTD. (XXIII) VIJAY MARBLES PVT. LTD 2. THE RESPONDENT: ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI M.P. 3. THE CONCERNED C.I.T: C.I.T.(2) JABALPUR 4. THE CIT (A) -1 JABALPUR 5. SR. DR ITAT 6. GUARD FILE