← 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-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 718/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

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

DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 717/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153B(1)(a)Section 153D

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

Mesers Goyal Energy & Steel Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/RPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.244 & 245/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) M/S Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central-2, Raipur Behind Happy Restaurant, Ring Road-2, Tatiband Chowk, Raipur-492009 Pan No. :Aaccg 2758 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia & Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 68

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

Mesers Goyal Energy & Steel Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.244 & 245/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) M/S Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central-2, Raipur Behind Happy Restaurant, Ring Road-2, Tatiband Chowk, Raipur-492009 Pan No. :Aaccg 2758 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia & Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 68

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

Diya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1929/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Diya Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 1373, Rani Bagh, Shakur Ward-7(3), Basti, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccd3991L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw [Jaiswal] Vs ACIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 has categorically held that 'mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted u/s 151[2] when the reasons on the basis

Sahil Bajaj, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4076/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

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 regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Fil Industries Ltd, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Fil Industries Ltd, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

M/S Fil Industries Ltd, Srinagar vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 417/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fil Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fil Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fil Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

M/S Fil Industries Ltd, Srinagar vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

actual cost incurred by the assessee has no connection with the subsidy received. In fact, amount of actual cost is never provided to the sanctioning authority for granting subsidy. It may be added here that all what has been provided to the sanctioning authority is only project cost

Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292B

Delhi (supra) in which reopening of the assessment in identical circumstances was held to be bad in law and sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority was also found invalid, therefore, reopening of the assessment was quashed. In the present case, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has pointed-out that

B.R Goel & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 9084/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 B.R. Goel & Sons (Huf) Ito, Ward 47(4), Drum 1228, Kaccha Bagh, Shape Building, I.P Chandani Chowk, Delhi Vs. Extension, New Delhi 110006 110002 Pin Aadhb5670C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri C.S Anand, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.S Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 had escaped assessment or not. 6. That the proceedings initiated us 147 are liable to be quashed because the sanctioning authority viz. the Id Pr. CIT Delhi-16 New Delhi had granted sanction to the Id. AO to issue notice

Shyam Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4908/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw [Jaiswal] Vs. ACIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 has categorically held that ‘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 on the basis ... 4907/Del/2018 Delhi (supra) in which reopening of the assessment in identical circumstances was held to be bad in law and sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority was also found invalid, therefore, reopening of the assessment was quashed. In the present case, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has pointed

Optimist Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68Section 69C

Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw [Jaiswal] Vs. ACIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 has categorically held that ‘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 on the basis ... 4907/Del/2018 Delhi (supra) in which reopening of the assessment in identical circumstances was held to be bad in law and sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority was also found invalid, therefore, reopening of the assessment was quashed. In the present case, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has pointed