“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

Aditya Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1343/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 147Section 263

being made. The Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on several documents including the confirmation from Dishman Group, relevant extracts of bank statements, approval under Section 151, notices issued under Sections Aditya Shah vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 - 4– 143(2) and 142(1) by the Assessing Officer, the order

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant of approval under Section 151 of the Act depends on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of three years

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

much as it was issued after obtaining the approval of the JCIT which was not the correct authority to grant approval under Section 151 (as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 1-4-2021) when four years had already elapsed from the end of the assessment year

Mangu Singh, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalmangu Singh, Vpo- Mirchuni, Tapukara, Bhiwadi, Alwar – 301 019 Pan No. Eifps8255E ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bhiwadi …... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 251Section 69A

learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, have erred in initiating and sustaining proceedings where the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, accorded approval under Section 151 of the Act in a routine and mechanical manner, without due application of mind. Such approval is contrary to the mandate of Section 151

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2292/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

that even the competent authority had not examined the basic facts from the evidences placed on record and had merely granted a mechanical approval under section 151 of the Act which becomes fatal to the entire reassessment proceedings. In the instant case, the Assessee Company had indeed sought for approval

Ved Prakash Sharma, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

which is chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment, issued notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 19.03.2020 after obtaining approval under section 151(1) from the competent authority. The assessee did not respond to the said notice. Therefore, noticeunder section 142(1) dated 09.09.2021 was issued requiring

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi in the case of ITO vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. dated 22.10.2024 (Delhi ITAT)wherein the Commissioner gave the approval under section 151 to the proposal under section 148 by affixing “Approved” and putting his signature. The Jurisdictional Delhi Bench of ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings ... Trib.) the CIT accorded his approval by simply stating "Approved” and it was held that such approval cannot be construed as approval under section 151 of the Act and reassessment proceedings were held to be bad inlaw. The Hon'ble ITAT held as under :- “The observations

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6113/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri D.C. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

legal and factual matters relating to the reassessment order. Notice under section 148 of the Act is claimed to be issued without taking approval under section 151. Besides, reopening is merely based on information received from the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra about some of the dealers indulging

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Solace Capital Services Private Limited, Ahmedbad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1438/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

reopened the case under Section 147 of the Act. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 19/02/2016 after obtaining approval under Section 151 of the Act. The assessee requested the reasons for reopening, which were provided on 08/07/2016. The assessee raised objections to the reopening ... legal grounds of Cross Objection, the AR contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 19/02/2016 after obtaining approval under Section 151. The AR placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of Shri Tehmul B. Sethana Vs. DICT (ITA No.1743/Ahd/2019), wherein

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

considering an identical issue has held in para 14 and 15 as under: “14. 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 20-3-2023. PCCIT ... material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved" by the PCCIT while granting approval under section 151 to the re-opening under section 148 is not enough. While the PCCIT is not required to record elaborate reasons, he has to record

Meenakshi Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(6), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging validity of the impugned reopening for want of valid reasons recorded as well as due approval under section 151 of the Act, learned departmental representative has invited the undersigned’s attention to pages 17 and 18 of the paper-book that

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 New Delhi, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

K K Spun India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Smt. Vimla Tripathi, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

ITA 310/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Vimla Tripathi V. The Income Tax Officer 119/12 B-1, Darshanpurwa Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aevpt9734K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.01.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,93,140/-. As Per Information Available With The Income Tax Department, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee, Along With Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Admeasuring 0.6200 Hectare On 01.08.2012 For A Consideration Of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Ao Further Noticed That The Market Value Of

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the purported approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been granted mechanically, which is non-est in law, therefore the Notice issued under section

Kavita Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3720/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Mahavir Singh Before Before Shri Mahavir Singh Shri Mahavir Singh, , , , Vice Shri Mahavir Singh Vice & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra Accountantmember Member

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Senior DR

Section 119Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

notice itself, the Assessing Officer recorded that necessary satisfaction of PCIT, Ghaziabad is obtained. He also took us through the relevant approval under Section 151 of the Act and the approving authority is mentioned as PCIT/CIT and finally one Officer named Amitav, PCIT, Ghaziabad has given approval on 30th March

R R Paints Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1112/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

admit the additional grounds. 4. The ld AR submitted that the Pr.CIT while giving approval under section 151 of the Act, has merely stated that he is satisfied, without elaborating anything about the materials placed before him and examined by Pr CIT for the purpose of satisfaction ... reassessment proceedings in assessee's case is not legally tenable. 6. The ld DR on other hand submitted that the in the approval under section 151 of the Act, is given based on the annexure to the approval note and that R R Paints Private Ltd. recording of approval

Master Trust Limited, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

30/03/2021 for A.Y. 2015-16, four years had already lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and as such the approval under section 151 was required from CIT/CCIT instead of from Joint/ Additional CIT and therefore the notice so issued under section 148 dt. 30/03/2021 is void ... talked about getting the sanction from JCIT, Range -1 Ludhiana. Further, he furnished and placed on record, a copy of the said approval under section 151 granted by the JCIT, Range-1, Ludhiana dt. 30/03/2021 and it was submitted that in view of the same, there doesn’t remain

DCIT CC 3.4, Mumbai vs. Gsp Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and also the cross objections appeal by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3465/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19 Co No.147/M/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3465/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Gsp Impex Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 11 Vikas Park, Jalpankhi Chs 3(4), Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Ltd, Juhu Tara Road Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai Mumbai – 400049, – 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan: Aaccg8149F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar:

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 68

order dated 13.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice dated 13.04.2022 under section 148 of the Act without the requisite approval under section 151 of the Act is bad in law. Consequently, the impugned reassessment order is liable to be quashed; 4. The CIT(A) / Assessing Officer

Birpal, G B Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 8849/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151

enclosed a catena of case-law right from pages 35 to 159 deciding the instant issue against the department that such an approval under section 151 of the Act is not a mere formal exercise but it requires due application of mind by the competent authority. 6. We accordingly find

Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Central - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 977/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 977/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited,…….………Appellant 1St Floor, Rup Chand Roy Street, Kolkata-700007, West Bengal [Pan:Aagcp0699B] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-2,………………………………..………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 263(1)

submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2020 was issued by the ld. Assessing Officer after taking prior approval under section 151 of the Act from ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata for escapement of income of Rs.1,45,00,000/-, which was the amount received from three ... Assessing Officer before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. ld. Assessing Officer after conducting proper inquiries and after taking prior approval under section 151 of the Act of ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata recorded reasons thereby forming a belief of escapement of income of Rs.1,45,00,000/-. There