← All Phrases

“approval under section 151”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 151453 judgments

The decision most relied on for approval under section 151 is CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (64 Taxmann.com 313), cited in 340 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on approval under section 151

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.

Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO
156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · High Court
213
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

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.

Narayanappa v. CIT
63 ITR 219 · 1967 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

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.

Verma Roadways v. ACIT
75 ITD 183 · 2000 · ITAT
130
citing judgments

Approval for assessment orders requires proper and thorough scrutiny and application of mind by the approving authority, involving an enquiry and judicial approach.

Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC
82 ITR 147 · 1971 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

To initiate reassessment under Section 147/148, the Income Tax Officer must have an honest and reasonable 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on cogent grounds and not mere suspicion. Reassessment is invalid if based only on a lack of analysis during the original assessment without new material.

Judgments citing approval under section 151

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 111/RPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

that where "Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction on proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice, approval under section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner in itself will not make approval invalid", this is altogether on different footing than

Shailesh Chhaganlal Haria Shah, Bhiwandi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 1177/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

money. No evidence was provided by the builder about payment of all alleged on-money. Thus, reasons recorded are not valid reasons. The approval under section 151 of reasons recorded is not valid. The assessing officer himself was not sure about the validity of reasons, in the last sentence

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire reassessment proceedings are void as the approval under Section 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical and without application of mind. The approval is not in accordance with law. Violation ... initio The ld AR challenged the re-opening primarily on the following grounds- a. Reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion' b. Approval under Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire reassessment proceedings are void as the approval under Section 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical and without application of mind. The approval is not in accordance with law. Violation ... initio The ld AR challenged the re-opening primarily on the following grounds- a. Reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion' b. Approval under Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire reassessment proceedings are void as the approval under Section 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical and without application of mind. The approval is not in accordance with law. Violation ... initio The ld AR challenged the re-opening primarily on the following grounds- a. Reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion' b. Approval under Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata vs. Rungta Irrigation Ltd, New Dehi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2401/KOL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction. [Para 10] It is noted that request for approval under section 151 in a printed format was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the Principal Commissioner

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rungta Irrigation Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2400/KOL/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction. [Para 10] It is noted that request for approval under section 151 in a printed format was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the Principal Commissioner

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rungta Irrigation Limited, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2399/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction. [Para 10] It is noted that request for approval under section 151 in a printed format was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the Principal Commissioner

Rungta Irrigation Limited, New Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2316/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction. [Para 10] It is noted that request for approval under section 151 in a printed format was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the Principal Commissioner

Rungta Irrigation Limited, Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2315/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

ITA Nos. 2257, 2303, 2315 & 2316/Kol/2024 & ITA Nos. 2399, 2400 & 2401/Kol/2024 Rungta Irrigation Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D

Rungta Irrigation Limited, New Delhi vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 2303/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] Ι.Τ

Rungta Irrigation Limited, Delhi vs. Central Circle 3(1)/Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2257/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of the sanction. [Para 10] It is noted that request for approval under section 151 in a printed format was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the Principal Commissioner

Manjit Singh Dhatt S/O Sh. Dalip Singh H.No.62, Vpo Dhatt Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4) Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1137/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 69A

argued that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law, as the reasons recorded were vague and without proper basis, and the approval under section 151 was granted mechanically. He further submitted that no valid service of notice under section 148 was effected, which goes to the root ... recorded reasons based on tangible material, namely the cash deposits in the joint bank account, and had obtained the necessary approval under section 151 before issuing the notice under section 148. As noted by the Ld. CIT(A), the account was in the name of both the assessee

M/S Abhman Distributor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1410/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

before us. The Ld. DR submitted that neither the issue of validity of the notice under section 143 (2) nor relating to the approval under section 151 of the Act was raised before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the same were opposed to be raised before the Tribunal

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Monarch Networth Capital Limited, Mumbai

ITA 962/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shrti Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee has raised cross-objections primarily challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the grounds that reasons recorded were factually incorrect and approval under section 151 was not furnished despite request. During the course of hearing, however, the learned AR fairly stated that since the CIT(A) had decided

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Monarch Networth Capital Limited, Mumbai

ITA 961/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shrti Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee has raised cross-objections primarily challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the grounds that reasons recorded were factually incorrect and approval under section 151 was not furnished despite request. During the course of hearing, however, the learned AR fairly stated that since the CIT(A) had decided

Manish Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Monarch Networth Capital Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

ITA 960/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shrti Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee has raised cross-objections primarily challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the grounds that reasons recorded were factually incorrect and approval under section 151 was not furnished despite request. During the course of hearing, however, the learned AR fairly stated that since the CIT(A) had decided

Gopal Extrusions Pvt Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jalgaon

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)

decision of Delhi High Court in case of Capital Broadways P Ltd V ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 533. Held that- Request for approval under section 151 in a printed format was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, who after according his satisfaction, placed the same before the Principal Commissioner

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

passed by the learned AO under section 147/144 on 05.12.2019 in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 unlawfully on 29.03.2018. 1. No Approval under section 151 is unlawful The learned AO was requested under letter dated 14.10.2021 copy of which is available on paper book page no. cited supra

Suman Kishore, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

basis of material placed before it before grant of sanction. 14. A perusal of the record reveals that the request for approval under section 151 of the Act in a printed format was placed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax ("PCCIT") on March 20, 2023. The Principal Chief ... weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved" by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax while granting approval under section 151 to the reopening under section 148 is not enough. ITA No.1435, 1434, 1433 & 1432/Del/2024 While the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income