“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

Sonal Snehal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1653/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

principal Commissioner of income tax 19, Mumbai on 22/3/2019 was only mentioning 'yes I am satisfied' is not proper satisfaction and approval under section 151 of the act. For this Page 10 ITA No.1653/M/2024 AY: 2012-13 Sonal Snehal Shah Versus ITO, Mumbai proposition he also supported his argument with

Varun Manjunatha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1278/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act without providing copy of the approval under Section 151 is without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. The notice issued under section

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2353/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

based on such reasons that too under non-existent provision i.e. Section 147(b) of the Act is a glaring pointer to mechanical approval under Section 151 of the Act. The learned Counsel thus contends that the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act based on such

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2352/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

Sunil Kumar Nagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

ITA 247/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny after recording reasons and after getting necessary approval under section 151 (2) of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2017. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 03.10.2017 and copy

Sunil Kumar Nagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

ITA 2118/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Moiz Hakimuddin Boriawala, United Arab Emirate vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 588/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 133Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 195Section 69

mutual funds of Rs. 1 crore, transacted in shares of Rs. 232,246,079/- and has income as per 26AS. Therefore, after taking approval under section 151 of the act the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the act were initiated by issuance of notice under section

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jmp Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3722/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. K Gopal/ Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Meena Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 154Section 250Section 68

unwarranted, arbitrary and bad in law. 2) The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the NFAC upholding the validity of the approval under section 151 of the Act is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Siemens Financial Services

Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad -3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 513/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R

Rita Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-It-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 916/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 147Section 151Section 250

given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment which was initiated without valid approval under section 151. Such reassessment proceedings initiated without valid approval is bad in law and liable to be quashed. On given facts, circumstances and Judicial pronouncements ... given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment which was initiated without valid approval under section 151. Such reassessment proceedings initiated without valid approval is bad in law and liable to be quashed. . On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements

Rita Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-It-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 915/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 147Section 151Section 250

Vikas Malu, Uae vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 818/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 153A

fulfilled the pre-requisites provided in law for conferment of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act and summary approval under Section 151 of the Act. However, he fairly said that he does not seek to make extensive arguments beyond what was stated before the CIT(A). 8.2 Adverting

Vikas Malu, Uae vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 817/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 153A

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

Section 120Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292B

that as per CBDT instruction number 1/2011 dated 31/1/2011 the jurisdiction of the assessee fell under an ACIT not ITO, and the approval under section 151 of higher authority was thus being mechanical in nature. I.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid 2. It is respectfully submitted that

Vishnu Kumar, Bharatpur vs. ACIT Or JCIT Or DCIT Or Asst. CIT Or ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bharatpur

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

response to notice under section 148 of 3 Sh. Vishnu Kumar the Act. Further, it has been submitted that copy of the approval under section 151 of the Act did not form part of the Reasons supplied to the assessee. In support of these contentions, learned AR has relied ... files return of income, the assessee might have furnished the return of income even earlier. As regards non supply of copy of approval under section 151 of the Act, suffice it to state that after the supply of Reasons for reopening, the assessee never lodged any protest with or asked

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Shiv Murti Developers P, Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 7889/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153A

sufficient reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs.9,68,34,953/- has escaped assessment. After recording the reasons and approval under section 151(1) of the Act, he issued notice under section 148 and served on the assessee but in response, assessee submitted return of income declaring

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Shiv Murti Developers P, Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 7888/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 153A

Kissan Fats Ltd., Bathinda vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

placed on record by the Ld. DR. 7. By letter no. CIT/Ldh/JB-11/2020-21/4945 dt. 18/19-02-2021 approval of Ld. PCIT(Central) Ludhiana has accorded the approval under section 151(1) for initiating proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 25 of written submissions of Ld. DR. On page

Rajendra Kumar Meena, Gangapur vs. ITO Ward-2 Sawamadhopur, Gangapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

Cables Ltd (Del)]. It has been held that Held The mere appending of the word “approved” by the CIT while granting approval under section 151 to the reopening under section 147 is not enough. While the CIT is not required to record elaborate reasons, he has to record satisfaction after

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

Reopening of the assessment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts in upholding reopening of assessment when approval under Section 151 of the Act is not obtained in prescribed manner. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts in upholding order ... issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act after recording reasons under Section 148(2) of the Act. After taking statutory approval under Section 151(2) of the act, notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to notice under