← All Phrases

“sanctioning authority”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 151426 judgments

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

Leading authorities on sanctioning authority

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.

64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court

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.

Madhya Pradesh in CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.

56 Taxmann.com 390 · 2015 · High Court

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

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.

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO

221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court

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.

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.

391 ITR 11 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the approving authority to apply its mind and form an opinion, not merely endorse it mechanically. Additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on suspicion alone and require conclusive evidence.

Arjun Singh v. ADIT

246 ITR 363 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

For a valid reassessment, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147. A mechanical endorsement like 'I am satisfied' without considering the material amounts to non-application of mind and invalidates the sanction under Section 151.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Judgments citing sanctioning authority

Dr. Sarvesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 57(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2339/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

eyes of the law and the same is mechanical and has been done without independent reasoning and application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 3. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in upholding the order

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), - 3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1560/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

application of mind. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the approved has been accorded with certain conditions. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed

Jar Pictures LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4410/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

appropriate authority. Since notice u/s 148 has been issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the sanctioning authority should be Principal CCIT or CCIT and here in this case PCIT has approved the notice which is bad in law. Before us it has been

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

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

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)

report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional ... seized material, which is evident from the fact on record that there is no whisper about availability and deliberation of such documents by the sanctioning authority while granting the approval u/s 153D dated 14.03.2016. Ld. AR further expounded that without submission of assessment records along with incriminating / seized documents

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

ITA 115/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

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)

report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional ... seized material, which is evident from the fact on record that there is no whisper about availability and deliberation of such documents by the sanctioning authority while granting the approval u/s 153D dated 14.03.2016. Ld. AR further expounded that without submission of assessment records along with incriminating / seized documents

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

ITA 114/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

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)

report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional ... seized material, which is evident from the fact on record that there is no whisper about availability and deliberation of such documents by the sanctioning authority while granting the approval u/s 153D dated 14.03.2016. Ld. AR further expounded that without submission of assessment records along with incriminating / seized documents

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

ITA 113/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2010-11

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)

report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional ... seized material, which is evident from the fact on record that there is no whisper about availability and deliberation of such documents by the sanctioning authority while granting the approval u/s 153D dated 14.03.2016. Ld. AR further expounded that without submission of assessment records along with incriminating / seized documents

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

ITA 112/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2009-10

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)

report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional ... seized material, which is evident from the fact on record that there is no whisper about availability and deliberation of such documents by the sanctioning authority while granting the approval u/s 153D dated 14.03.2016. Ld. AR further expounded that without submission of assessment records along with incriminating / seized documents

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)

report relating to examination / investigation of seized material and issues unearthed during search have been statedly considered by the AO seeking approval. Thus, the sanctioning authority has, in effect, abdicated his/ her statutory functions and delightfully relegated his/her statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional ... seized material, which is evident from the fact on record that there is no whisper about availability and deliberation of such documents by the sanctioning authority while granting the approval u/s 153D dated 14.03.2016. Ld. AR further expounded that without submission of assessment records along with incriminating / seized documents

M/S. Soft Zone, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle5, Pune, Puine

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 724/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.724/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Soft Zone, V The Dcit, 84 Laxmi Road, Opp.Ganesh S. Circle-5, Pune. Peth Police Station, Ganesh Peth, Pune – 411003. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Vindo Pawar – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 16.01.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Re-Opening Of The Assessment In This Case Is Invalid & Bad In Law. The Notice U/S 148 & Consequentially, The Impugned Re-

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says ... order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted

Precel Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Central)-3, Mumbai. Therefore, we find that the notices have been issued without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate sanctioning authority. Hence, they are not valid in the eyes of law. The decision of Manish Financial (supra) is directly on the issue. Under similar facts, the ITAT held that

Precel Solutioins Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Central)-3, Mumbai. Therefore, we find that the notices have been issued without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate sanctioning authority. Hence, they are not valid in the eyes of law. The decision of Manish Financial (supra) is directly on the issue. Under similar facts, the ITAT held that

Naina Manish Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnaina Manish Desai, Flat No. 6, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3Rd Floor, Triveni Building, बनाम – 19(2)(4), Piramal Walkeshwar Triveni Chs E Chambers, 5Th Floor, Block, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 006, Maharashtra 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabps9026P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

accordance with the provisions of section 151(ii). 8.1 Moreover, on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the above mentioned decision of hon’ble Apex Court(supra) which has been elaborately considered by the coordinate Bench

Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Homewell Realty LLP, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the sanctioning authority was Pr.CCIT/CCIT. 6.2 Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) that the notice under section ... invalid and the consequent reassessment orders under section 147 was quashed. Moreover, on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the above mentioned decision of hon'ble Apex Court(supra) which has been elaborately considered

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

deliberated at length as follows: 42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant ... Circle-38, Kolkata [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Calcutta), W.P.(C) 11302/2019 & W.P.(C) 11303/2019 Page 40 of 47 www.taxguru.in the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when the reasons

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

deliberated at length as follows: 42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant ... Circle-38, Kolkata [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Calcutta), W.P.(C) 11302/2019 & W.P.(C) 11303/2019 Page 40 of 47 www.taxguru.in the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when the reasons

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

deliberated at length as follows: 42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant ... Circle-38, Kolkata [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Calcutta), W.P.(C) 11302/2019 & W.P.(C) 11303/2019 Page 40 of 47 www.taxguru.in the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when the reasons

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3995/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

application of mind. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the approved has been accorded with certain conditions. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3994/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

application of mind. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the approved has been accorded with certain conditions. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed

Naveen Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3993/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountant Memebr

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

application of mind. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the approved has been accorded with certain conditions. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed