← All Phrases

“sanction under section 151”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 151259 judgments

The decision most relied on for sanction under section 151 is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1), cited in 439 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on sanction under section 151

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha
79 ITR 603 · 1971 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

A valid reassessment under Section 147 requires concrete 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment, not mere suspicion or a desire to conduct fishing and roving enquiries. If the first proviso to Section 147 applies, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just a mere charge of bogus expenses.

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.
64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

A mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151, made without independent application of mind, vitiates and renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Such approvals, often indicated by brief, unreasoned endorsements, lead to the quashing of the reopening of assessment.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

Madhya Pradesh in CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 390 · 2015 · High Court
188
citing judgments

A sanction for issuing a notice under section 148 is invalid if the sanctioning authority grants approval mechanically, merely recording 'Yes, I am satisfied' without proper application of mind to the reasons for reassessment. The authority must demonstrate proper consideration to fulfill the statutory obligation under section 151.

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.
345 ITR 223 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT
398 ITR 198 · 2017 · High Court
137
citing judgments

Sanction under Section 151 granted in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, vitiates reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. The court also laid down guidelines for the Revenue to follow when reopening assessments, emphasizing the need to provide reasons and approval documentation to the assessee.

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO
221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

Judgments citing sanction under section 151

Shivram S Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thane

ITA 5653/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is the jurisdictional Officer to grant sanction under Section 151 (2) of the Act. This, Officer he, submits has recorded his satisfaction with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to issue

Shivram S Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 5652/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is the jurisdictional Officer to grant sanction under Section 151 (2) of the Act. This, Officer he, submits has recorded his satisfaction with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to issue

Aeon Commercial India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai, Mumabi

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

ITA 5381/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 68

deleted. 23. Since we have decided the issue on merits in favour of the assessee, the legal grounds challenging the validity of reopening, sanction under section 151, issuance of notice under section 148 12 ITA No. 5381/Mum/2025 Aeon Commercial India Private Limited and other jurisdictional issues are not adjudicated

ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Yasmin Kapoor, Delhi

ITA 3379/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A": NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Yasmin Kapoor, Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2221/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi vs. Deepa Talwar, Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

Yasmin Kapoor, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 19, Delhi

ITA 1542/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "A": NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

Bysol Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5898/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

order passed under section 148A(d) and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act are without proper sanction under section 151 of the Act making the same illegal and which deserves to be quashed as per law and in the interest of justice. 4. On the facts ... Commissioner. 7 Bysol Enterprises Pvt Ltd. AY 2017-18 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison

Anumita Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

bank accounts had already been considered and taxed in his hands. 8. The assessee also raised various legal objections, including alleged defects in sanction under section 151, absence of DIN on notice under section 148, violation of section 151A and the faceless reassessment scheme, and non-communication of approval under ... Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein it has been categorically held that sanction under section 151 is a jurisdictional condition, and sanction by an authority not prescribed under the Act renders the reassessment proceedings void. 11.8. The learned AR further submitted

Rajput Mohammadmuntasim Tashbihuddin, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3958/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Annexure-A for reference. Therefore, the allegation that the reopening is "illegal or contrary to law" on account of non-supply of sanction under section 151 is incorrect and untenable. Accordingly, the assessment order passed under section 147/144B is valid, lawful, and sustainable in the eyes of law. Ground ... copy of the order sheet evidencing the same is enclosed as Annexure-A. Hence, the allegation of absence or invalidity of sanction under section 151 Is unfounded and devoid of merit.” 5.1. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO in the notice

Prakash Reddy Vatti, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issued the notices instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering the proceedings invalid. 8. That the sanction under Section 151 granted for reopening was mechanical and without due application of mind, vitiating the proceeding and assessment order. 9. That the Assessing Officer failed to provide

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit and Yum Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. 397 ITR 665, which was in respect of sanction under section 151(2) of the Act for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The orders under sections 142(2A) and or 151

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

ITA 1595/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.45 & 46/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2025] निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.K. Reddy, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Department By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit and Yum Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. 397 ITR 665, which was in respect of sanction under section 151(2) of the Act for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The orders under sections 142(2A) and or 151

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit and Yum Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. 397 ITR 665, which was in respect of sanction under section 151(2) of the Act for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The orders under sections 142(2A) and or 151

Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit and Yum Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. 397 ITR 665, which was in respect of sanction under section 151(2) of the Act for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The orders under sections 142(2A) and or 151

Periasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit and Yum Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. 397 ITR 665, which was in respect of sanction under section 151(2) of the Act for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The orders under sections 142(2A) and or 151

Vikas Chandra HUF, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward-4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

held as under:- “8. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted the challenge only to the grant of sanction under section 151 of the Act, stating that the same has been granted mechanically and without due application of mind, and therefore, the grant of sanction is liable ... 148A(d) of the Act has been granted without application of mind by all the five officers involved. For ease of reference, the sanction under Section 151 is scanned and reproduced herein: Vikas Chandra HUF Vikas Chandra HUF 3. Mr. Mistri states this ground could not have been taken

Abdul Salam Mohamed Yasin, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 7502/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: 1. Assessment Year
Section 07Section 1Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

issued beyond the statutorily permissible limitation period, as judicially construed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal; and secondly, the mandatory sanction under section 151(ii) has been accorded by an incompetent authority. Either of these defects, in isolation, would have been sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. Together

Tushar Vipinchandra Shukla, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1654/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 80G

originally alleged. 4. The order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law, as sanction under section 151 of the Act was obtained only in respect of alleged escapement of "5,00,000/-, whereas the order under section 148A(d) refers