MANISH CHANDULAL JOBANPUTRA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 414/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to a defective approval under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the approval provided by the revenue was neither digitally nor manually signed. The Tribunal respectfully followed the binding precedent of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s Aditya Plastic (supra), which held that an unsigned approval under section 151 renders the notice under section 148 bad in law and without jurisdiction. The reasoning was that the satisfaction of the prescribed authority is a prerequisite for the AO to assume jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148. Since the approval was not validly obtained, the AO lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order framed by the AO was quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manish Chandulal Jobanputra, filed an appeal against the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2020-21. This order arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 07.03.2025. The assessee's counsel argued that the approval under section 151 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings was neither manually nor digitally signed, rendering the assessment order bad in law. The revenue's representative relied on the AO's order. The Tribunal directed the revenue to produce the section 151 approval, which was found to be unsigned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law due to a defective approval under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The approval under section 151 of the Act was neither manually nor digitally signed, making it invalid. - Based on this defective approval, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in law and without jurisdiction. - The present appeal is covered by the ITAT, Rajkot Bench's decision in M/s Aditya Plastic (ITA No. 185/Rjt/2024). Revenue's contentions: - The revenue's representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15/10/2026Pronounced: 22/10/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट । In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 414/RJT/2026 [ िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2020-21 ] Manish Chandulal Jobanputra, ITO, Wd-1(1)(1), बनाम/ C-701, Sandhiya Green, Speedwell Aayakar Bhavan, Race Vs. Party Plot Road, Ring Road, Mavdi, Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005. Gujarat-360001 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGJPJ6922H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. AR राज� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/10/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/10/2026

:: आदेश/ORDER :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2020-21, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] dated 04.02.2026 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC’], which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’] u/s. 147 of the Act dated 07.03.2025.

2.

When this appeal was called out for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench in the case of M/s Aditya Plastic, in ITA No. 185/Rjt/2024, for AY 2013-14, wherein identical and similar facts have

been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that approval under section 151 of the Act has neither been signed manually nor signed digitally, hence assessment order may be quashed. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that based on defective approval, the reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer is bad in law. The Ld. Counsel stated that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the order of Assessing Officer.

4.

I see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench in the case of M/s Aditya Plastic in ITA No. 185/Rjt/2024 for AY 2013-14 vide order dated 03.09.2025. In this order, the ITAT, Rajkot has inter alia observed as follows: “8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record. We note that the approval of the PCIT is without any signature of the Ld.PCIT and without generating any DIN number which is reproduced below:

8.1. Therefore, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has stated that the approval u/s.151 of the Act dated 30/03/2020 is not signed by the Ld.PCIT and, hence, it is not considered as a valid approval/satisfaction and, thus, the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on the basis of said approval is bad in law and without jurisdiction. For that, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vikas Gupta reported at (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad HC). The relevant part of judgement is reproduced: 13. Thus, as per provision of section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an assessing officer gets jurisdiction to issue notice to an assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961 after Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied on the reason recorded by the assessing officer that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. The date and time of the approval granted digitally under section 151 of the Act and the date and time of the notice under section 148 of the Act, shows that the satisfaction was recorded by the PCTT digitally after the notice under section 148 was digitally signed. 29. In the present set of facts there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the by the Prescribed Authority under section 151 of the Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961. At the time when the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority ie. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction. The questions no. (a) and (b) are answered accordingly. 8.2. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order framed by the AO needs to be quashed as there was no approval u/s.151 of the Act for initiating the re-assessment proceedings by the Ld.PCIT, therefore, on this count the assessment order framed by the AO should be quashed.”

5.

The Bench has directed the learned DR for the revenue to provide approval under section 151 of the Act, from the assessment records, to verify the fact whether the approval under section 151 of the Act has been signed or not. Accordingly, Ld. DR for the revenue, provided to the Bench, a copy of the approval under section 151 of the Act, which is neither signed digitally nor manually, which is reproduced below:

6.

As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Rajkot Bench in the case of M/s Aditya Plastic (supra), and there is no change in facts and law and the revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the Division Bench (supra). I find no reason to interfere in the said order of the Division Bench. Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent of the Coordinate Bench (supra), I allow the appeal of the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 22/10/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/Date: 22/10/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  The CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Rajkot  Guard File /True copy/ By order

Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →