MANOHAR GANGWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.10.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

That upon examination of the said approval by the competent authority at Sr. No.22, the Pr. CIT writes that “on going through the satisfaction note of the A.O and in view of the comments of the A.O and Range Head, this is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, the case is approved for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961”.

That when the provision i.e. Section 151 of the Act speaks of approval to be granted for sanctioning notices u/ss. 148 & 148A of the Act by the Higher Authority of the Department, it therefore clearly expresses that whether the said notice has to be issued or not, should be authorized from higher wisdom of the competent authority therein. That if legislature had thought that no such requirement was necessary, then this provision would not have been placed in the Act itself. That when the office of the Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, are involved for sanctioning of notices as per the provision, it effectively therefore mandates that such competent authority has to independently apply mind to the case records of each of the assessee and while granting the said approval even may be in the briefest possible form some noting has to be there to demonstrate that independent application of mind has been done to show case that higher wisdom has come to play regarding such sanctioning of statutory notices as per the said provision. That suppose, as in the present case, the authority like Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax relies on the satisfaction of the A.O and does not provide independent application of mind on the given facts and circumstances before sanctioning of notices, the entire purpose and intention of the legislature regarding Section 151 of the Act gets largely defeated.

That as evident in the present case, the Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 had completely relied on the satisfaction of the A.O without bringing on board his independent reasoning, without providing any findings on what basis he is issuing the sanction, nothing has been mentioned by the competent authority which therefore, vitiates the very approval itself and consequently, all other subsequent proceedings also. The same dictate emanates from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. N.C Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (Del.). That on examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that the approval u/s.151 of the Act has been granted by the competent authority in a casual and mechanical manner sans any independent satisfaction and reasoning, therefore, it is arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio hence quashed.

That once the said approval u/s.151 of the Act is itself quashed, therefore, all other subsequent proceedings becomes non-est as per law. A void approval cannot bestow upon the A.O any valid inherent jurisdiction.

That as per above terms, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 6th day of April, 2026.