ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Assessments over Jurisdictional Errors and Mechanical 153D Approval:

ITAT Ahmedabad Quashes Assessments over Jurisdictional Errors and Mechanical 153D Approval The assessee was subjected to search-related proceedings arising from two separate search actions. Because of overlapping centralization orders and multiple transfers of jurisdiction under section 127, the assessee found himself facing proceedings under sections 153A and 153C from different assessing officers at the same time. Despite issuing notices at different stages, the Department itself recognised inconsistencies. The assessee repeatedly objected to the overlapping proceedings and jurisdictional confusion. Even after filing the return on 29 March 2016 in response to the fresh 153A notice, the AO ignored it and passed an ex-parte best-judgment order under section 144 on 30 March 2016. The assessee argued that the entire process violated natural justice, lacked mandatory notices under sections 153A and 143(2), and was completed in an extremely rushed manner without considering the return on record. Main Issue: Whether the assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were legally sustainable when notices were issued without jurisdiction, multiple parallel proceedings were running, no meaningful opportunity was given, and approval under section 153D was allegedly mechanical and non-application-of-mind. Tribunal Decided: The Tribunal found that such an assessment, completed in two days, without considering the return, and without granting any reasonable opportunity, was in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. The hurried manner in which the AO proceeded showed a complete absence of application of mind. The ITAT further held that the approval obtained under section 153D also could not be regarded as valid. The approval was necessarily mechanical, rushed, and granted without examining the case file or noting that a return had indeed been filed. The Tribunal quashed the assessments for both AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. As the assessments themselves were invalid, the additions became academic and were not examined on merits. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below