← 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

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1433/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

Sh. Sohan Lal, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25F

submit their VRS/VSS applications in the prescribed format In triplicate indicating clearly the Scheme under which they opt for VRS/VSS, to the Sanctioning Authority through proper channel. The Sanctioning Authority will communicate the acceptance of VRS/VSS to the employee indicating the date of relieving based on the decision

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

much as the same has been issued without striking off the inapplicable words and thus shows non application of mind (ii) The sanctioning authority u/s 151 of the Act is also a mechanical sanction as could be seen form the aforesaid fads. The reasons recorded ... reasons from the higher authority. Thus, there must be a constructive application of mind by the ld. Assessing Officer, vis- à-vis the higher sanctioning authority on the material possessed by the ld. Assessing Officer and if on a particular item on which information was collected, the Assessing Officer

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

much as the same has been issued without striking off the inapplicable words and thus shows non application of mind (ii) The sanctioning authority u/s 151 of the Act is also a mechanical sanction as could be seen form the aforesaid fads. The reasons recorded ... reasons from the higher authority. Thus, there must be a constructive application of mind by the ld. Assessing Officer, vis- à-vis the higher sanctioning authority on the material possessed by the ld. Assessing Officer and if on a particular item on which information was collected, the Assessing Officer

Pankaj Surech Rach, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2290/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 50C

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

M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 500/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.500/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd. .....……………………....………....Appellant Block-B, Suit No.1A Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcm8943Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 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 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘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 Notice U/S 148 & The Reassessment Completed By Ito Wd 6(4) Was Without Jurisdiction, Invalid & Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 On Vague Reasons Without Any Tangible Material Or Independent Application Of Mind Simply On Borrowed Satisfaction, Suspicion & Surmises Were Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Indovision Commodities Ltd 3. For that the proceedings initiated u/s 147 were bad in law since no copy of approval /s 151 by sanctioning authority was provided during the assessment proceedings. 4. For that the notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to supply of the reasons recorded for reopening

Sindoori Traders Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3780/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(2)Section 50C

power of re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining permission from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax since the sanctioning authority in the case is the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax since four years had not elapsed from the end of Assessment year sought

Sunil Chablani, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 68/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT-DR)
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 45

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1202/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 and also in not providing the copy of satisfaction recorded by such sanctioning authority- prior to giving the sanction. 7) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1150/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 and also in not providing the copy of satisfaction recorded by such sanctioning authority- prior to giving the sanction. 7) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

Yogender Kumar Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

Yogender Kumar Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2910/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

Yogender Kumar Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2909/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

Yogender Kumar Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2908/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

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

DCIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Ram Kumar Shokeen, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151

such perfunctory approvals in the context of s. 151 and quashed the reassessment notice on the grounds of non- application of mind by the sanctioning authority by holding such approval as non-est in the eyes of law. 3.5 The ld. counsel submitted that the jurisdictional High Court as well ... formal opportunity to assessee rationally calls for greater degree of circumspection and restraint while evaluating the proposed action of the AO. The sanctioning authority while exercising power under Section 151 of the Act, is thus expected to examine the reasons, material or grounds and to judge whether they are relevant

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2767/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 151

case in upholding the impugned reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that the sanction u/s 151 of IT Act has been mechanically accorded by the sanctioning authority. (Tax Effect Rs.55,45,826/-) 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the estimated addition

Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 458 /Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., Dpt, 801, Dlf Central Circle – 28 Prime Tower, Plot No.F- New Delhi 79 & 80, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaecm 5383 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & I.T.A. No. 827/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dcit Vs. Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle -28 164, M.G. Road, Budge, Delhi West Bengal – 700 137 Pan: Aaecm 5383 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 250(6)

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 ITA Nos.458 & 827/Del/2022 Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year : 2015-16 duty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi., Delhi vs. Sandeep Bajaj, Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 2993/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

applied his mind, therefore, it cannot be said that it was approved mechanically. It has been argued by the Ld. DR that the sanctioning authority is not required to give elaborate reasons for his satisfaction. For this proposition, he relied upon the following case laws: - -PCIT V Pioneer Town Planners

Veena Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 295/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 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