← 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

M/S. Educational Concepts Innovators International, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

Accordingly all these additional grounds are dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 44A

Officer has not followed proper procedure before and after issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act, be that may be sanction under section 151 of the Act and consequently, subsequent proceedings on an invalid procedure adopted by the learned assessing officer becomes void-ab-inito and does

Late Shri Jitendra Nagar Through His L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Baran, Baran

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 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 assesse because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison ... under sub-section (13) of section 144C or issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, — (i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which

Siyaram City Cabs Ltd., Jaipur vs. Itd Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 572/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in issuing notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without obtaining proper sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1682/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

that the issue of limitation and present case, however, it is manifest that the issue of limitation and the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were neither urged ... limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged relating to limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1681/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

that the issue of limitation and present case, however, it is manifest that the issue of limitation and the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were neither urged ... limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged relating to limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1680/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

that the issue of limitation and present case, however, it is manifest that the issue of limitation and the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were neither urged ... limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged relating to limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never

DCIT Cen 5 3, Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

ITA 1679/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Anish Thackar
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 148Section 148ASection 44

that the issue of limitation and present case, however, it is manifest that the issue of limitation and the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were the alleged absence of proper sanction under section 151 were neither urged ... limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged relating to limitation under section 148 as well as the alleged absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never raised before, nor absence of sanction under section 151 were never

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 1233/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd 7. On the facts and circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section 149(1)(b)(ii). Accordingly grant of sanction is liable

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1108/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

148B has been accorded by Addl. CIT/ JCIT(Range head in a mechanical manner. 7. On the facts and circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1107/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

148B has been accorded by Addl. CIT/ JCIT(Range head in a mechanical manner. 7. On the facts and circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1106/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

148B has been accorded by Addl. CIT/ JCIT(Range head in a mechanical manner. 7. On the facts and circumstance of the case, sanction under Section 151 of the Act, has been granted mechanically and without satisfaction that how it fits under Section 149(1)(b)(i) and Section

Lenient Consultants Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2331/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

ITANo.2331/Del/2025 LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6159/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI

ITO-34.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mangal Suresh Karkhanis, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is,

ITA 486/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

unable to accept the submission of the Ld. DR that the defect is merely procedural and curable. The requirement of prior sanction under section 151 is a jurisdictional precondition. It conditions and limits the very assumption of power by the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment. Absence of sanction ... dated 11.05.2023 framed under section 147 r.w.s.144B is invalid and liable to be quashed, having been initiated without jurisdiction for want of valid sanction under section 151(ii). The very foundation of the proceedings being void, the consequential additions made on account of alleged penny stock transactions do not survive

Seenappa Chandra Shekar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148

invalid as the reason stated therein are vague and without any application of mind. He also challenged the sanction under section 151 of the Act. On the notice by the learned CIT – A, he submitted that assessee has submitted the email addresses and stated that the notices /communication

Mahayana Theravada Vajrayana Buddhist Religious and Chaitable Trust, Meerut vs. ACIT Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 1709/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 10. Additional ground of appeal has been raised by the assessee on the ground that the sanction under Section 151 of the Act granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction as notice under

Mahayana Theravada Vajrayana Buddhist Religious and Charitable Trust, Meerut vs. ACIT Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 1708/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 10. Additional ground of appeal has been raised by the assessee on the ground that the sanction under Section 151 of the Act granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction as notice under

Mahayana Theravada Vajrayana Buddhist Religious and Charitable Trust, Meerut vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut

ITA 1682/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 10. Additional ground of appeal has been raised by the assessee on the ground that the sanction under Section 151 of the Act granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction as notice under

Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sunidhi Securities & Finance The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 4(2)(1), Mumbai 8Th Floor, Unit-1, Kalpataru Inspire, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Santacruz K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (East), Mumbai – 400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs1657D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shashi Bekal : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Of Reopening The Assessment Merely Based On Reason To Suspect & Not Reason To Believe & Is Therefore Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Treating The Trading In Steel Exchange India Limited Through Recognized Stock Exchange As Bogus Trading Loss. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited

For Appellant: Shri. Shashi Bekal
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 250

Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in the issuance of Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) with an incorrect sanction under section 151 of the Act in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal

Tuffwud India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the filed by is allowed in above terms

ITA 571/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

order for the impugned assessment year on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. The learned assessing officer has failed to obtain sanction under section 151 of the Act. Without prejudice, the sanction obtained, if any, is invalid, mechanical and without application of mind on the facts and circumstances