Section 153D's Institutional Check: How Prior Approval Limits PCIT's Power to Invoke S. 263 in Search Assessments

Assessment proceedings initiated following a search or requisition under the Income Tax Act, 1961, represent an extraordinary exercise of statutory power by the Revenue.

These assessments are governed primarily by Section 153A, which mandates the reopening of assessments for a specified block of years.

However, to mitigate the potential for arbitrary application of this power, the legislature introduced critical procedural safeguards, most notably the mandatory requirement for prior approval under Section 153D.

The subsequent validity of any revisional action under Section 263 depends fundamentally upon the procedural integrity established by Sections 153A and 153D.

A. Assessment in Search Cases: Section 153A

Section 153A governs the assessment of income for any person subjected to a search or requisition. This provision obligates the Assessing Officer (AO) to initiate fresh assessments for six previous assessment years preceding the year of search (and up to ten years in certain conditions).

Unlike standard assessments, Section 153A focuses on bringing undisclosed income discovered during the search operation to taxation. For taxpayers, understanding the procedural framework is essential, as assessments under this section are subject to strict timelines, requiring completion within 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the last authorization for search was executed.

A foundational judicial principle governing these proceedings is that additions during a Section 153A assessment can only be made if incriminating material is discovered during the search. Where assessments were already completed prior to the search, they cannot be disturbed unless clear evidence of undisclosed income is uncovered.

Furthermore, strict adherence to procedural mandates, such as the requirement to issue and serve notice under Section 143(2) after the return u/s 153A is filed, is necessary, as non-service can lead to the annulment of the assessment itself.

B. Section 153D: Prior Approval as a Jurisdictional Prerequisite

Section 153D imposes a procedural limitation, providing that no assessment order under Section 153A or Section 153C shall be passed by the AO without the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) or the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT).

The introduction of Section 153D reflects a legislative intent to impose an institutional check on the extraordinary powers vested in the AO during search assessments. The extraordinary power under Section 153A which permits the reopening of closed assessments potentially involving complex legal and factual issues demands an equally rigorous statutory control mechanism.

The JCIT, as the senior authority, is tasked with exercising a quasi-judicial function to prevent arbitrary or unsubstantiated additions by the AO. The failure of this institutional check profoundly undermines the procedural fairness and legal legitimacy of the entire search process.

C. Section 263: Revision of Orders Prejudicial to Revenue

Section 263 grants the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) supervisory authority to revise an order passed by the AO if the order is found to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. This revisional power is broad, allowing the CIT to examine the record relating to any proceeding.

However, the power under Section 263 is not unlimited. An order cannot be revised simply because the CIT disagrees with the AO's conclusion when two views are possible, or because the AO did not make an elaborate discussion.

The CIT must establish that the order is erroneous due to an incorrect application of law, an incorrect assumption of facts, or the absence of inquiry or application of mind. This foundational requirement that the AO's order must be fundamentally flawed, yet still existent and passed within jurisdiction forms the basis of why Section 263 fails when the Section 153A order itself is jurisdictionally void.

II. The Mandatory and Quasi-Judicial Nature of Section 153D Approval

The central issue in determining the validity of assessments under Section 153A/153C, and subsequently the potential for revision under Section 263, lies on the quality of the approval obtained under Section 153D. Judicial scrutiny has focused intently on ensuring that the approval process is a substantive, quasi-judicial act, not merely a rubber-stamp formality.

A. Judicial Interpretation: Quasi-Judicial Function vs. Administrative Nod

The requirement for prior approval under Section 153D is not a simple administrative acknowledgement; it constitutes a quasi-judicial proceeding. This necessitates that the approving authority the JCIT or ACIT apply their mind judiciously to the facts, materials, and draft assessment proposed by the AO.

Courts have repeatedly emphasized the critical nature of this process. The legal principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner, applies with full force to Section 153D.

The judicial view unequivocally rejects the argument, often advanced by the Revenue, that Section 153D only requires the mere existence of a signed approval. To accept such a proposition would render the entire approval process meaningless and negate the essential institutional checks and balances intended by the legislature.

B. Indicators of Mechanical and Invalid Approval

A statutory approval granted without the due application of mind is considered a fatal defect to the entire search assessment proceeding. The courts and tribunals have developed specific tests to identify when an approval is mechanical and hence invalid

i. Consolidated and Same-Day Approval

One of the most frequent indicators of mechanical approval is the timing and format of the sanction. Where the senior officer grants a consolidated, single approval covering multiple assessment years for an assessee or multiple assessees simultaneously, and grants it on the very same day the draft order is submitted by the AO, it demonstrates a complete non-application of mind.

The requirement for substantive scrutiny applies separately to each assessment year, as each year involves a distinct legal proceeding, potentially with unique incriminating material and separate legal issues. Therefore, a single, blanket approval covering all years fails to meet the quasi-judicial mandate for year-specific diligence.

ii. Failure to Examine Substantive Material

The JCIT’s application of mind must involve independent verification. This includes reviewing the seized documents, the questionnaires issued by the AO, the replies filed by the assessee, and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the draft order.

Approval based solely on the draft assessment order, without independent examination of the records or seized materials, renders the approval mechanical and void ab initio. Granting approval in a mere template format, without reference to the material supporting the additions, indicates a lack of due diligence.

The following table summarizes the key statutory and judicial requirements differentiating a valid approval from a mechanical one:

Table: Judicial Tests for Valid Application of Mind under Section 153D

III. The Consequence of Procedural Breach: Assessment Void Ab Initio

When the mandatory nature of Section 153D is violated by granting mechanical approval, the legal consequences are severe and definitive. The defect is not merely a procedural irregularity; it is a jurisdictional flaw that strikes at the root of the assessment order itself.

A. Substantive Defect and Nullity

Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 153D is characterized as a substantive defect. Such a defect is not curable under the law. When an assessment order is passed under Section 153A without a valid, judiciously applied prior approval, the order is deemed null in the eye of law. It stands as an invalid order, bad in law at the threshold, and unsustainable.

B. Application of Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus

The judiciary applies the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, meaning "when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls," to these scenarios. The Section 153D approval is the indispensable legal foundation for the Section 153A assessment. If the approval is quashed because the approving authority lacked the requisite application of mind, the entire assessment proceeding collapses.

Then, the assessment order framed by the AO is declared void ab initio; it is treated as if it never legally existed. This distinction between an order that is merely 'erroneous' and one that is non-est (non-existent) is pivotal in subsequent litigation, particularly concerning revisional jurisdiction.

Section 263 is designed to address orders that are erroneous (i.e., the AO had the jurisdiction but exercised it poorly, perhaps failing to inquire into a specific point). However, mechanical 153D approval implies the AO lacked the jurisdictional prerequisite (prior sanction) to pass the order at all, making the resulting document legally a nullity.

IV. Invalidity of Revision: Section 263

The definitive legal status of an assessment quashed due to an invalid Section 153D approval creates an absolute jurisdictional barrier for the PCIT/CIT seeking to exercise revisional powers under Section 263.

A. An Order Must Exist to Be Revised

For Section 263 to be invoked, the PCIT must find that the AO’s order is both ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. If the underlying Section 153A assessment is declared void ab initio due to a fundamental jurisdictional flaw (lack of valid 153D approval), it ceases to be an existing legal order susceptible to revision. An order that is non-est cannot logically be classified as 'erroneous' or 'prejudicial'.

The High Courts and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) have established that revision under Section 263 cannot be predicated upon an assessment that has been previously quashed for invalid Section 153D approval. The revisional authority cannot attempt to resuscitate a legally dead order.

B. Preventing the Circumvention of Statutory Limitation

A crucial judicial consideration supporting the non-applicability of Section 263 in these circumstances relates to statutory timelines. Search assessments are constrained by strict completion deadlines defined in Section 153A.

If the AO passes an assessment order close to the statutory deadline based on mechanical 153D approval, and that order is later quashed on the ground of invalid sanction, the time limit for passing a fresh, valid 153A order has typically expired.

If the PCIT were permitted to invoke Section 263, the PCIT would effectively be directing the AO to pass a new assessment order, thereby curing a jurisdictional defect and, critically, overriding the expired statutory limitation period set for search assessments.

The judiciary prevents the Revenue from utilizing Section 263 as a backdoor mechanism to cure fundamental jurisdictional defects or illegally extend time limits mandated by law.

C. Prior Review as a Check on Subsequent Revision

The judiciary further supports the limitation on Section 263 in search assessments by noting the built-in institutional checks provided by Section 153D. When an assessment order has already been subjected to the mandatory scrutiny and prior approval of a senior authority (JCIT/Addl. CIT) under Section 153D, subjecting it subsequently to revision under Section 263 creates a conflict and defeats the principle of finality in assessment proceedings.

The High Court has previously ruled that an assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under Section 153D cannot be subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act. This framework establishes a clear hierarchy of defects and the corresponding remedies

Table: Section 263 Revision Bar: Jurisdictional vs. Substantive Defects

V. Case Law: Confirmation of the Jurisdictional Barrier

Recent rulings from the ITAT have solidified the position that a mechanical Section 153D approval fatally compromises the subsequent assessment and renders any attempt at revision under Section 263 jurisdictionally invalid.

A. Leading ITAT Decisions on S. 153D Invalidity

The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has provided comprehensive analyses regarding the mandatory nature of Section 153D approval, particularly in cases such as Deepak Gulati Vs. ACIT, which followed the precedent set in SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT.

In Deepak Gulati Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal examined the circumstances where the ACIT accorded consolidated, single approval for multiple assessment years on the very same day the draft assessment order was submitted and the final assessment orders were passed. The ITAT found that these facts established that "no time available" for the ACIT to verify and examine the draft assessment order and the entire record.

The approval was determined to be granted in a mechanical manner, resulting in a void ab initio assessment order. The Tribunal observed that the mandatory application of mind involves the approving authority reviewing all facts, seized evidence, and ensuring the AO followed the correct procedure.

B. The Finality Doctrine: Section 263 and Non-Est Orders

The principle that an assessment quashed for invalid 153D approval cannot be subject to Section 263 revision has been consistently upheld. In one notable ruling, the Tribunal confirmed that invoking Section 263 against an assessment already quashed for invalid Section 153D approval would unlawfully extend the statutory limitation period.

The determination of non-est due to a procedural failure takes precedence over the substance of the assessment. Even if the AO’s substantive findings for example, on issues like excess stock or bad debts were technically correct or based on incriminating material, the assessment is fundamentally vitiated by the lack of jurisdictional approval.

The courts prioritize the procedural integrity of the foundational approval under Section 153D over the Revenue’s interest in recovering tax through a revisional remedy. When the foundation is removed, the Revenue loses the legal object upon which to apply the revisional power, regardless of the potential merit of the additions themselves.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

VI. Conclusion

The jurisprudence surrounding search assessments under Section 153A, combined with the mandatory prior approval under Section 153D, establishes a clear set of procedural requirements that the Revenue must strictly adhere to. The judiciary, through rulings of the ITAT and High Courts, has established that the power to revise assessment orders under Section 263 is circumscribed by the jurisdictional validity of the original assessment itself.

The definitive judicial position is synthesized as follows:

1. Valid approval under Section 153D is not a mere technicality but a mandatory, quasi-judicial prerequisite for framing search assessments. It requires the JCIT/ACIT to apply an independent and judicious mind to the specific facts, evidence, and legal issues of each assessment year.
2. Mechanical approval, characterized by same-day sanction or consolidated approval for multiple complex years, constitutes a jurisdictional failure, rendering the resulting assessment order under Section 153A/153C void ab initio (non-existent).
3. The underlying assessment is non-est, the PCIT/CIT cannot invoke Section 263 to revise it. An order that never legally existed cannot be deemed 'erroneous' or 'prejudicial' for the purposes of revision.
4. This jurisdictional bar prevents the Revenue from utilizing Section 263 as a tool to circumvent the statutory limitations period imposed on search assessments, upholding the finality of proceedings where the Revenue failed to execute its statutory duties correctly at the threshold.

This judicial scrutiny makes sure that the extraordinary powers granted to tax authorities in search cases are always balanced by mandatory institutional checks, reaffirming the principle of adherence to statutory procedure in taxation law.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates