← 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. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1437/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA
Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1436/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA
Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4462/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloys P.Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4461/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4463/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

Vrushali Sanjay Shinde, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

ITA 198/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevrushali Sanjay Shinde V. Dcit, Central Circle-1 282, Boundary Road B-101, Marigold, Prestige Residency G.B. Road, Kavesar, Thane- 400607 Civil Line, Meerut - 250001 Pan: Ajnps5211K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sankalp Malik Department Represented By : Shri Shanti Subramanian

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

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

ACIT Circle - 58(1), New Delhi vs. Neeraj Aggarwal, New Delhi

Accordingly the petition is allowed

ITA 1661/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 111A

completely inconsistent with the previous view but even without an iota of reason. 9. So far as the respondent’s argument of two different sanctioning authorities is concerned, no doubt order dated 28.07.2022 was issued with the approval of Principal Commissioner Income Tax-10 and order dated 31.07.2022 was issued ... recorded in both orders' was of same Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. There is nothing on record to suggest even feebly that the latter sanctioning authority was apprised of the earlier view taken in order dated 28.07.2022. An assessee, deals with the income tax department as a whole, like

Vinay Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 42(4), New Delhi

Accordingly the petition is allowed

ITA 1661/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 111A

completely inconsistent with the previous view but even without an iota of reason. 9. So far as the respondent’s argument of two different sanctioning authorities is concerned, no doubt order dated 28.07.2022 was issued with the approval of Principal Commissioner Income Tax-10 and order dated 31.07.2022 was issued ... recorded in both orders' was of same Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. There is nothing on record to suggest even feebly that the latter sanctioning authority was apprised of the earlier view taken in order dated 28.07.2022. An assessee, deals with the income tax department as a whole, like

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

draft order on merit, order was approved solely relying upon undertaking obtained from AO that he has taken due care while framing assessment — Thus, sanctioning authority delegated his statuary duty to grant Approval, after due application of his mind, to the same subordinate AO, whose action ACIT, was supposed

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

draft order on merit, order was approved solely relying upon undertaking obtained from AO that he has taken due care while framing assessment — Thus, sanctioning authority delegated his statuary duty to grant Approval, after due application of his mind, to the same subordinate AO, whose action ACIT, was supposed

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

draft order on merit, order was approved solely relying upon undertaking obtained from AO that he has taken due care while framing assessment — Thus, sanctioning authority delegated his statuary duty to grant Approval, after due application of his mind, to the same subordinate AO, whose action ACIT, was supposed

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

draft order on merit, order was approved solely relying upon undertaking obtained from AO that he has taken due care while framing assessment — Thus, sanctioning authority delegated his statuary duty to grant Approval, after due application of his mind, to the same subordinate AO, whose action ACIT, was supposed

Shri Ravinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

draft order on merit, order was approved solely relying upon undertaking obtained from AO that he has taken due care while framing assessment — Thus, sanctioning authority delegated his statuary duty to grant Approval, after due application of his mind, to the same subordinate AO, whose action ACIT, was supposed

Agroha Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2859/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargagroha Fincap Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-51, Mahendru Enclave Gt Ward-1(4), Karnal Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaca8075G

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 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

Emm Aar Tourism Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 5790/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 Emm Aar Tourism P. Ltd. Ito Ward 8(2), New Delhi 10685, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aacce 1918 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shikar Garg, Ca Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-24 New Delhi Dated 11.04.2019 For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Sole Legal Ground Of Assessee Is As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao For Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. Assessee Representative Submitted That For Ay 2010-11 The Assessee Submitted Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 46,894/- Which Was Processed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. Drawing Our Attention Towards Pages 27 To 32 Of Assessee Paper Book The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessing Officer Received Information From The Investigation Wing Which Conducted Search & Seizure Operation On 18.11.2015 On Pradeep Kumar Jindal Group. He Further Elaborated That On Receipt Of Information The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Initiated Of Reassessment Proceedings On 29.03.2017 & Obtained Approval Of Acit As Well As Pcit On The Very Same Date. The Ld. Ar Drawing Our Attention Towards Page 28 Of The Approval Note Submitted That The Ld. Acit While Granting Approval Noted “Yes, It Is A Fit Case” & The 1

For Appellant: Shri Shikar Garg, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

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 [6] competent authority to authorize

M/S Narula Foods Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 80/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

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

M/S Narula Foods Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 79/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

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

M/S Narula Foods Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 78/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

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

M/S Narula Foods Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 77/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

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