← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Goyal and Co. (Const.) Private Limited., Ahmedabad

ITA 1836/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2016-17 The Dcit Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private बनाम/ Central Circle-1(2), Limited V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 10Th Floor Commerce House Iv Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 अपीलाथ'/ (Appellant) !( यथ'/ (Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2024 - िनधा"रण वष" /Ay 2016-17 (In Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 – Ay 2016-17) V/S. Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private The Dcit Limited Central Circle-1(2), 10Th Floor,Commerce House Iv Ahmedabad – 380 009 Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Aabcg 5459 R (Cross Objector) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

books. 5.1. In light of this, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148, after recording reasons and obtaining sanction under section 151. 6. The AO rejected the assessee’s explanation that the ledger was a third-party document not maintained by it and was allegedly prepared ... entries, which matched the sale deed and the assessee’s books. The AO had recorded reasons based on seized material and obtained necessary sanction under section 151. It was held that there was tangible material and live link justifying reopening under section 147. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed

Msg All Trading International Private Limited, East Azad Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Msg All Trading International Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., Office No.2, 3Rd Floor, Circle-11(1), 80, East Azad Nagar, Delhi Raghuvarpura, Shahdara, Delhi-110051. Pan-Aajcm6792K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, Ca & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

mention that assessee has not acquired or constructed any immovable property during the year under consideration. 18. It is relevant to mention that sanction under section 151 of the Act is salutary as it ensures that reopening notices are not lightly issued and the same is done to avoid harassment

Ali Mohammad, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5608/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

Mumbai has recorded his approval in the following words: ‘Yes, I am satisfied. In the context of recording of reasons while according sanction under section 151 of Act, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Line & Chemicals Ltd., in paragraph ... therefore, satisfied that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of Joint CIT, Range 5(3), Mumbai, while granting sanction under section 151 of Act. There is no prior sanction granted by Respondent No.2, before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the jurisdictional

Basant Aerospace Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 2292/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Company to the tune of Rs 4.05 crores had escaped assessment. This also further goes to prove that the competent authority had accorded sanction under section 151 of the Act for reopening the assessment based on this incorrect assumption of facts. This clearly proves that even the competent authority

Basant Aerospace Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 520/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Company to the tune of Rs 4.05 crores had escaped assessment. This also further goes to prove that the competent authority had accorded sanction under section 151 of the Act for reopening the assessment based on this incorrect assumption of facts. This clearly proves that even the competent authority

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

quashing the initiation of re-assessment proceedings on. both counts i.e., initiation of re-assessment proceedings is without fresh tangible material and that sanction under section 151 is invalid. Therefore, once the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this question is not challenged by the Revenue Department, it became

Deepanshu Projects Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), C. R. Building

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1730/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 234BSection 40

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 assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2472/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Hemendra Ramji Vira, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 56Section 68

material fact of jurisdictional transfer. It is apparent the assessment records — which had already been transferred. Thus, the PCIT–27, while granting sanction under section 151, was misled into believing that the case still lay within his jurisdiction. 20. We reiterate that upon issuance of the transfer order under section ... PCIT–27 was denuded of all authority in respect of the assessee, including the power to accord sanction under section 151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix

Dushyant Bhati, Noida vs. PCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri SomilFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154BSection 263

income of Rs.10,02,150/- under the head ‘income from business and profession’. The case was reopened after recording reasons and obtaining necessary sanction under Section 151 of the Act. In response to the notice under Section 148 dated 28.02.2021, assessee filed ITR Section 139 dated 23.07.2013 totaling to income

Kishore Rambilas Khandelwal, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250

assessment year 2015-16 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sanction under section 151 was unsigned and the reopening on the basis of a defective sanction, was required to be set aside

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

Bansal as reported in (2023) 301 Taxman 238 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

Bansal as reported in (2023) 301 Taxman 238 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

Bansal as reported in (2023) 301 Taxman 238 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind

Rosha Alloys P Limited, Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

Bansal as reported in (2023) 301 Taxman 238 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the purpose of obtaining sanction under Section 151 of the Act is to safeguard the assessee from mechanical reopening of assessments, and to ensure that the higher authority applies its mind