← 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
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.

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.

(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.

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.
391 ITR 11 · 2017 · High Court
104
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
102
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
95
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
89
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

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Logistics and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 627/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit-Cc-7(3) Lotus Logistics & Developers Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. 1301, 13Th Level, Lotus Trade Mumbai-400020 Centre, New Link Road, Near D N Nagar Metro Station, Andheri-West, Mumbai- 700013 Pan No. Aabcl 1198 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43C

period. Hence the Specified Authority under clause (ii) of Section 151 namely PCCIT or Principal Director or Chief Commissioner or Director General are the Sanctioning Authority required to approve the reopening of assessment. Whereas in this case, approval was obtained from the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad ... same is reproduced as follows: 7.1. Since the Sanctioning Authority for reopening of assessment was obtained from a wrong Specified Authority, the entire reopening itself is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Further this issue is no more res- integra by the land mark decision

Yezdi Naushir Bharucha, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 315/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.315/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yezdi Naushir Bharucha, V The Income Tax Officer, Bharucha House, New Laxmi S. Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. Talkies Road, Amalner – 425401. Maharashtra. Pan: Abepb6770B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening U/S 148 Was Valid In Law Without Appreciating That The Notice U/S 148 Was Issued Was Invalid In Law & Accordingly, The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 Should Have Been Declared Null & Void.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

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 ... impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond aperiod 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

Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 2405/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 2(14)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with

ACIT Circle 22 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajesh Nemichand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1457/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

aside the order u/s 148A (d) of the Act and consequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on the issue of improper sanctioning authority u/s 151 (i) of the Act without considering provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and CBDT

ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi vs. River Builders (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 9446/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 9446/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Acit, Vs M/S River Builders Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), C-59, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr2730H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi’S In Case No. 10415/410/Cit(A)-7/Del/2018-19 Dated 06.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

make it clear that the assessee company herein is engaged in real estate business who had made the impugned payments to the sanctioning authority namely M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority, in the regular course of it’s business i.e. regularization of building plan etc. the assessee’s impugned payment are admittedly

Raju Shreedhar Ghodake, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

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 ... impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond aperiod 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

Dinesh Dilip Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2048/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2048/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Dilip Mehta, V The Income Tax Officer, 936 3, Irvin Road, New Nana S Ward-7(1), Pune. Peth, Opp.M Phule High School, Pune – 411002. Pan: Abbpm0414G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor - Dr Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 01.08.2024For Assessment Year2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.69,10,300/- On Account Of Alleged Commission Income U/S 56 Of The Act.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56

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 ... impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond aperiod 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

Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Devalbai Karsan Parmar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1)(1), H9, B-401, Herumb Chs, 3Rd Floor, New Mhada Colony, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Kamgar Nagar, Lalbaugh, Near Tilak Nagar Mumbai-400012. Railway Station, Chembur, Mumbai-400024. Pan: Aispp0021A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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 Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with

Kai Ganpatrao Sakharam Pawar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Karad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

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 ... impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond aperiod 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

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

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

ITA 6126/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

well. 19. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

ITA 6125/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

well. 19. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

ITA 6124/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

well. 19. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

ITA 6123/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

well. 19. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A

ITA 6122/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

well. 19. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024

Dalpat Baraiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1692/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 54B

jurisdiction to reopen the assessment itself is bad in law since the reopening of assessment is done beyond three years period, then the Sanctioning Authority is either PCCIT or CCIT as per Section 151 of the Act. In this case, three years from the end of the relevant assessment year ... period. Hence the Specified Authority under clause (ii) of Section 151 namely PCCIT or Principal Director or Chief Commissioner or Director General are the Sanctioning Authority required to approve the reopening of assessment. Whereas in this case, approval was obtained from the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

assessee's cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no ITA No.1850/Del/2019, 1470 &1122/Del/2020 proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Asha P Kedia, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the Assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3672/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit 32 1 Ms. Asha P Kedia 252, Kautilya Bhavan, 602, Vishwananak Bldg, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Ict Link Rd, Maharashtra - 400051. Andheri East, Maharashtra - 400099. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.181/M/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3672/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha P Kedia Assistant Commissioner Plot No. 18, Sagar Jyoti, Of Income Tax-32 (1) 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Vs. 252, Kautilya Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400056. 400020. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17 . 03 .2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 . 03 .2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal By The Revenue Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 21.05.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. Co. No. 181/Mum/2024 Ms. Asha P Kedia 2. Considering The Delay Of 4 Days In Filing Of The Co By The Assessee Is Miniscule, Bonafide & Unintentional As Claimed By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 68

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 Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3792/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Omkandalkar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short)

For Respondent: Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68Section 69

Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022), where the provisions of TOLA1 were applicable, the sanctioned authority was the Principal Commissioner and stated that there was no violation of the provisions to that extent. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower ... notices that could be issued for eternity like in this case, on 31st July 2022, would be sanctioned by the authority other than sanctioning authority defined under the Act. 32. We have to also note that the instructions dated 11th May 2022, on which respondents have relied upon

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Parth Multitrade Pvt Ltd, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/PUN/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 68

perverse one since as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act as existed at the relevant time, the sanctioning authority was the Joint / Addl. CIT since the original assessment was completed u/s 143(1) and not u/s 143(3), and therefore the approving authority is not the PCIT