I argued before the Tribunal that the s.153D approval was mechanical and its order says nothing about it. Can I take that straight to the High Court?
Not usefully. The Kerala High Court declined to answer any issue affirmatively, set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the appeal for fresh consideration, because the Tribunal had recorded the s.153D ground as one of three issues before it and had not specifically answered it. Every relevant issue must receive the Tribunal's attention before the High Court can adjudicate on it as an appellate forum.
Decided by the High Court (Devan Ramachandran J and Basant Balaji J) on 2026-06-04, reported as ITA No. 44 of 2025; 2026:KER:39101 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). It bears on section 153D, section 153A, section 132, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment, Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This is the procedural half of the s.153D fight and the library did not have it. A Tribunal order that upholds the assessment on the incriminating-material point and simply passes over the approval ground is not a decision on the approval ground, and the High Court will not fill the gap; it sends the matter back. That cuts both ways. For the assessee it means a silent Tribunal order is not fatal — but it also means a second round rather than a decision on the merits, with a six-month outer limit set here. The Court was candid that it could only surmise why the Tribunal had not answered the point, and that if the approval order had in fact been produced before the Tribunal, the failure to advert to it would leave the order 'without forensic favour'. Note also the second, wider point: the Court allowed the appellant to raise before the Tribunal an entirely new legal ground, not taken below — that the s.153A notice was issued not by the Assessing Officer on his own but at the dictation of the Joint Commissioner. The regime point: the search was under s.132 at the appellant's own premises, the notice was under s.153A and the year is AY 2009-10, so this is the s.153A/s.153C regime for searches initiated between 1 June 2003 and 31 August 2024.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A search and seizure operation under s.132 was conducted at the premises of the appellant firm and, it was alleged, several incriminating materials were found and seized. A notice under s.153A followed for assessment year 2009-10, in response to which the appellant filed a return making certain additions. The Deputy Commissioner, Kozhikode, completed the assessment under s.153A(a) making further additions. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant contended both that the additions rested on no incriminating material and that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner had been given mechanically without application of mind. The first appeal was dismissed. Before the Tribunal (ITA No. 234/Coch/2023) the appellant recorded three contentions, set out at paragraph 12 of the Tribunal's order: that the s.153A notice was void ab initio for want of incriminating material; that the Joint Commissioner's approval was granted without any application of mind; and that no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material, relying on CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contentions. In the s.260A appeal counsel also raised a fresh legal point, conceded to be new, that the s.153A notice was itself vitiated because on its face it had been issued not by the Assessing Officer on his own but in accordance with the dictates of the Joint Commissioner.
The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration untrammelled by its earlier views, to be decided as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellant was permitted to file additional pleadings raising all issues it required. The Court declined to answer any issue affirmatively (para 7), holding that every relevant issue, including those recorded in the judgment, must receive the Tribunal's attention before the High Court can adjudicate upon them as an appellate forum (para 14).
The Court found that the Tribunal had itself recorded three issues at paragraph 12 of its order and ought to have considered all of them, but that the contention that the s.153D approval was vitiated by improper application of mind had not been specifically answered (para 10). Reading the order as a whole, it was discernible that the Tribunal had accepted the Department's assertion that incriminating material had been obtained in the search, so that the first limb — that the s.153A notice was void — was untenable; and it may have gathered the impression that the Joint Commissioner's opinion was consequently based on that material and therefore not mechanical (paras 10 and 11). But in the absence of any specific advertence to the issue, the Court could only surmise and could not be sure why the Tribunal had not answered it (para 12). The new ground raised for the first time in the High Court had likewise never been tested by the Tribunal, though the Court did not blame the Tribunal for that since it was never raised before it (para 13). The Court added that if, as counsel asserted, the Joint Commissioner's approval order had been produced before the Tribunal, then the failure to advert to it would render the order without forensic favour (para 15).
We are, consequently, of the firm view that every relevant issue, including those recorded by us in this judgment, ought to receive the attention of the learned Tribunal, before this Court can adjudicate upon them as an Appellate Forum.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot usefully. The Kerala High Court declined to answer any issue affirmatively, set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the appeal for fresh consideration, because the Tribunal had recorded the s.153D ground as one of three issues before it and had not specifically answered it. Every relevant issue must receive the Tribunal's attention before the High Court can adjudicate on it as an appellate forum. This was decided by the High Court (Devan Ramachandran J and Basant Balaji J) and bears on section 153D, section 153A, section 132, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 44 of 2025; 2026:KER:39101 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). This is the procedural half of the s.153D fight and the library did not have it. A Tribunal order that upholds the assessment on the incriminating-material point and simply passes over the approval ground is not a decision on the approval ground, and the High Court will not fill the gap; it sends the matter back. That cuts both ways. For the assessee it means a silent Tribunal order is not fatal — but it also means a second round rather than a decision on the merits, with a six-month outer limit set here. The Court was candid that it could only surmise why the Tribunal had not answered the point, and that if the approval order had in fact been produced before the Tribunal, the failure to advert to it would leave the order 'without forensic favour'. Note also the second, wider point: the Court allowed the appellant to raise before the Tribunal an entirely new legal ground, not taken below — that the s.153A notice was issued not by the Assessing Officer on his own but at the dictation of the Joint Commissioner. The regime point: the search was under s.132 at the appellant's own premises, the notice was under s.153A and the year is AY 2009-10, so this is the s.153A/s.153C regime for searches initiated between 1 June 2003 and 31 August 2024. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the s.153D approval order itself before the Tribunal, and get the fact of its production recorded. That is what the High Court hung the remand on.
A search and seizure operation under s.132 was conducted at the premises of the appellant firm and, it was alleged, several incriminating materials were found and seized. A notice under s.153A followed for assessment year 2009-10, in response to which the appellant filed a return making certain additions. The Deputy Commissioner, Kozhikode, completed the assessment under s.153A(a) making further additions. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant contended both that the additions rested on no incriminating material and that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner had been given mechanically without application of mind. The first appeal was dismissed. Before the Tribunal (ITA No. 234/Coch/2023) the appellant recorded three contentions, set out at paragraph 12 of the Tribunal's order: that the s.153A notice was void ab initio for want of incriminating material; that the Joint Commissioner's approval was granted without any application of mind; and that no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material, relying on CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contentions. In the s.260A appeal counsel also raised a fresh legal point, conceded to be new, that the s.153A notice was itself vitiated because on its face it had been issued not by the Assessing Officer on his own but in accordance with the dictates of the Joint Commissioner. The matter was decided on 2026-06-04 by the High Court (Devan Ramachandran J and Basant Balaji J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration untrammelled by its earlier views, to be decided as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellant was permitted to file additional pleadings raising all issues it required. The Court declined to answer any issue affirmatively (para 7), holding that every relevant issue, including those recorded in the judgment, must receive the Tribunal's attention before the High Court can adjudicate upon them as an appellate forum (para 14).
The Court found that the Tribunal had itself recorded three issues at paragraph 12 of its order and ought to have considered all of them, but that the contention that the s.153D approval was vitiated by improper application of mind had not been specifically answered (para 10). Reading the order as a whole, it was discernible that the Tribunal had accepted the Department's assertion that incriminating material had been obtained in the search, so that the first limb — that the s.153A notice was void — was untenable; and it may have gathered the impression that the Joint Commissioner's opinion was consequently based on that material and therefore not mechanical (paras 10 and 11). But in the absence of any specific advertence to the issue, the Court could only surmise and could not be sure why the Tribunal had not answered it (para 12). The new ground raised for the first time in the High Court had likewise never been tested by the Tribunal, though the Court did not blame the Tribunal for that since it was never raised before it (para 13). The Court added that if, as counsel asserted, the Joint Commissioner's approval order had been produced before the Tribunal, then the failure to advert to it would render the order without forensic favour (para 15). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We are, consequently, of the firm view that every relevant issue, including those recorded by us in this judgment, ought to receive the attention of the learned Tribunal, before this Court can adjudicate upon them as an Appellate Forum." The decision followed or applied CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC) — relied on by the assessee before the Tribunal and noted by the Court within the extracted Tribunal paragraph.
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-06-04 and is reported as ITA No. 44 of 2025; 2026:KER:39101 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 153D, section 153A, section 132, section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration untrammelled by its earlier views, to be decided as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellant was permitted to file additional pleadings raising all issues it required. The Court declined to answer any issue affirmatively (para 7), holding that every relevant issue, including those recorded in the judgment, must receive the Tribunal's attention before the High Court can adjudicate upon them as an appellate forum (para 14). It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment, Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 153D, section 153A, section 132, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Devan Ramachandran J and Basant Balaji J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If the Tribunal's order records your ground but does not answer it, say so in the s.260A appeal in terms, and ask for a remand rather than a decision — the High Court will not decide it first. Consider a rectification application under s.254(2) as the quicker route where the Tribunal has simply omitted to deal with a recorded ground. Do not assume a finding that incriminating material existed disposes of the approval ground. The High Court treated them as separate issues and refused to infer the second from the first. On a remand, file additional pleadings. The Court expressly permitted the appellant to raise all issues it required, including the new ground that the s.153A notice was issued at the dictation of the Joint Commissioner rather than on the Assessing Officer's own satisfaction. Diarise the outer limit if you get one; here the Tribunal was directed to decide within six months of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. The judgment is dated 4 June 2026 and nothing was searched for by way of a special leave petition or subsequent Tribunal order on the remand. Note that this is an order of remand and decides nothing about whether the approval in this case was in fact mechanical. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The full judgment is short and was transcribed in one pass. The Court's own paragraph 8 extracts paragraph 12 of the Tribunal's order, which is the source of the three issues listed in the facts here. The concluding two paragraphs of the judgment are unnumbered in the printed text. The Court cites the Supreme Court decision in Abhisar Buildwell only as it appears within the extracted Tribunal paragraph, as [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC); note that the same decision is cited as (2024) 2 SCC 433 in the Orissa High Court judgment in this batch. The Tribunal's order under appeal, ITA No. 234/Coch/2023, was not retrieved. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 234/Coch/2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration untrammelled by its earlier views, to be decided as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellant was permitted to file additional pleadings raising all issues it required. The Court declined to answer any issue affirmatively (para 7), holding that every relevant issue, including those recorded in the judgment, must receive the Tribunal's attention before the High Court can adjudicate upon them as an appellate forum (para 14).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
When must the satisfaction note be recorded before proceedings are taken against a third party?
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?
The Tribunal recalled its whole order on my miscellaneous application. Will that recall survive?
The seized documents say nothing about the years being assessed. Can s.153C still be used for them?