DAVENDRA SINGH,SHAMLI vs. ITO, SHAMLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was mechanical and without application of mind, as it referred to a repealed section of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the validity of the approval obtained under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The approval form incorrectly referenced Section 147(a), which had been omitted from the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the approval for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 was valid when it erroneously referenced a repealed section of the Income-tax Act, indicating a lack of application of mind by the approving authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Jodhpur [in short ‘the CIT(A)’], dated 12.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2012-13.
Sh. Ashish Agarwal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee, at the outset, submits that he would be pressing only additional ground no. 3 of appeal challenging validity of the approval under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal vide application dated 05.05.2026. The solitary additional ground pressed by the assessee reads as under:
ITA 2874/DEL/2026 DAVENDRA SINGH
“S. No. 3 – On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, Ld. A.O. was wrong in issuing reasons to believe u/s 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in col. No. 7) to issue notices) u/s 148 Dt. 08-03-2019.”
The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the reasons for initiating proceedings under section 148 are recorded at pages 8 and 9 of the paper-book. The necessary approval u/s 151 of the Act for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act is at page 6 & 7 of the paper book. A perusal of the Approval Form would show that the Assessing Officer has sought approval under section 147(a) of the Act. Clause (a) to section 147 was omitted from Statute w.e.f. 01.04.1989. The approving authority i.e. PCIT in a mechanical manner without looking at the reasons and the section under which the Assessing Officer is seeking approval, accorded approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. This clearly shows that the approval has been granted by the PCIT in a mechanical and perfunctory manner.
Per contra, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and the approval granted by the PCIT. Learned Sr. DR submits that the approval note has been inadvertently mentioned as “under section 147(a) of the Income- tax Act, 1961”, in fact, it is clause (a) of the explanation 2 to section 147. He thus prayed for upholding the approval and the assessment order.
Both sides heard, documents referred during the course of submissions considered. The assessee has raised a solitary legal issue in the appeal challenging approval under section 151 of the Act. The short contention of the assessee is that the approval accorded for initiating proceedings under section 148 is mechanical. The assessee has drawn our attention to the approval at page 6 and 7 of the paper-book, which reads as under:
Whether the provisions of sec. 147(a) or 147(b) 147(a) of the I.T. Act, are applicable or both the sections are 1961 applicable.
A bare reading of approval shows that there is specific mention to the provisions of section 147(a) of the Act and not clause (a) to explanation 2 to section 147 as argued by learned Departmental Representative. Clause (a) to section 147 has been repealed from the Act since 01.04.1989. Neither the Range Head nor the PCIT has bothered to read the contents of Approval
ITA 2874/DEL/2026 DAVENDRA SINGH
Form before granting the approval. This clearly shows non-application of mind by the approving authority. The approval for initiating proceedings under section 148 of the Act is granted in a perfunctory and mechanical manner, hence unsustainable. The reopening of assessment fails to pass the test of judicial scrutiny since the mandatory approval is without application of mind. Thus, the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. I hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, 23rd September, 2026
Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 23-09-2026 RK/- Copy to: DAVENDRA SINGH ITO JAAT COLONY KANDHLA, SHAMLI- SHAMLI 247775, UTTAR PRADESH SHAMLI-247776, UTTAR PRADESH
1 2 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 151
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026