VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawConcepts › s.153D approval: the second signature that has to mean something

s.153D approval: the second signature that has to mean something

When does approval under s.153D stop being a safeguard and start being a rubber stamp that destroys the assessment?

When does approval under s.153D stop being a safeguard and start being a rubber stamp that destroys the assessment?

In search assessments the Assessing Officer cannot pass the order without the prior approval of the Joint or Additional Commissioner. Courts have held the approval must show an application of mind, and composite, same-day or last-minute approvals covering many years or many assessees have been held to vitiate the assessments entirely.

This is an explainer, not a judgment. It states the law in our own words, which is exactly why it needs checking. Everything below was written from the sources listed at the foot of this page, and no chartered accountant has yet signed it off. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply or an appeal.

Section 153D requires that no order of assessment or reassessment in a case falling under s.153A or s.153C be passed by an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. The purpose is that a superior officer independently examines the draft before large search additions crystallise into demands. Two lines of facts recur. The first is timing: drafts placed before the approving authority a day or two before limitation, as in ACIT v Serajuddin & Co, where the Orissa High Court held that although elaborate reasons are not needed there must be some indication that the drafts were examined, and where the Supreme Court later dismissed the Revenue's SLP. The second is volume: a composite approval covering several years, or dozens of cases cleared in a day, as in PCIT v Shiv Kumar Nayyar, where the Delhi High Court held approval cannot be a ritualistic formality. The Bombay High Court applied the same test in late 2025 where over thirty approvals issued within minutes. The consequence is annulment rather than remand, because an approval showing no application of mind is treated as no approval. The point is won on documents, so the case stands or falls on obtaining the approval letter.

What to do

Authorities on these sections

Judgments in this library that turn on the same provisions.

Where this came from

Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.