← 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

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 407/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Puraswani as against the reopening of assessment namely the reopening is beyond 4 years period, then the Issuing Authority is Joint Commissioner and the Sanctioning Authority is Commissioner of Income Tax whereas in this case the notice was issued by Income Tax Officer. Therefore the entire reassessment itself

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 406/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Puraswani as against the reopening of assessment namely the reopening is beyond 4 years period, then the Issuing Authority is Joint Commissioner and the Sanctioning Authority is Commissioner of Income Tax whereas in this case the notice was issued by Income Tax Officer. Therefore the entire reassessment itself

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 405/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Puraswani as against the reopening of assessment namely the reopening is beyond 4 years period, then the Issuing Authority is Joint Commissioner and the Sanctioning Authority is Commissioner of Income Tax whereas in this case the notice was issued by Income Tax Officer. Therefore the entire reassessment itself

Arvind Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-3, Thane

In the result, we quash the reassessment initiation

ITA 1798/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Arvind Mohanlal Jain Cit(A)-3 Flat No.304, Room No-30, D-Wing, Vishwanath Nagar, B-Wing, Asher It Park, Vs. Gandhi Chowk, Wagle Industrial Estate, Kulgaon, Badlapur (E) Thane 400 604 Mumbai-421 503 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpj2456J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

part of the Assessing Officer is prima facie evidence of non application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority while granting the sanction.” 011. When the ld AO fails to mention right section applicable and ld Sanctioning authority put its sanction on such a document, there cannot

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 2253/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 148

draw adverse inference against respondent that if it is disclosed it may be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. One wonders whether the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act also would have even applied his mind because the reasons recorded as noted above itself displays non application ... same was granted mechanically without application of mind to the facts because if only the Assessing Officer had placed the entire file before the sanctioning authority he would have pointed out the error in the reasons for re-opening. 8. In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

developer shall prepare, submit and obtain sanction of the plans for construction of the Project from the Bangalore Development Authority and/or the appropriate sanctioning authority. The owner shall co-operate with the Developer in obtaining the sanction of Project plans and other approvals. The Developer shall be entitled to make

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

developer shall prepare, submit and obtain sanction of the plans for construction of the Project from the Bangalore Development Authority and/or the appropriate sanctioning authority. The owner shall co-operate with the Developer in obtaining the sanction of Project plans and other approvals. The Developer shall be entitled to make

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

developer shall prepare, submit and obtain sanction of the plans for construction of the Project from the Bangalore Development Authority and/or the appropriate sanctioning authority. The owner shall co-operate with the Developer in obtaining the sanction of Project plans and other approvals. The Developer shall be entitled to make

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

actual reasons recorded were not provided to the ass provided to the assessee; (c) improper sanction and c) improper sanction and satisfaction of the sanctioning authority as per section 151 of the Act; (d) satisfaction of the sanctioning authority as per section 151 of the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority ... Haryana Acrylic Mfg Ltd (supra) is of no assistance to the assessee. no assistance to the assessee. (iii) Improper sanction and satisfaction of the sanctioning authority as mproper sanction and satisfaction of the sanctioning authority as mproper sanction and satisfaction of the sanctioning authority as per section

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1076/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreeenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)

notice u/s 148 in the case of the assessee for the reasons mentioned in the proposal letter. The proposal has finally been accepted by sanctioning authority by writing the words ‘Yes, I am satisfied.’ 9. Upon perusal of the same, it could be gathered that Ld. AO recorded elaborate reasons

Shariuzzaman Shamsuzzaman Shaikh, Mumbia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-26(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5416/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Shafuzzaman Shamsuzzaman Shaikh Shop No.2, Building No.2, Mubarak Complex, V.B. Nagar, Kurla (West),Mumbai-400070 Pan: Ayips7233B ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-26(3), C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.K.C,. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

eyes of the law and the same is mechanical and has been done without independent reasoning and application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 2) The learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering the fact that there was no escapement of income found by the learned Assessing Officer

M/S Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 945/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Ratan Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Government and other bodies are towards conducting research work and the amount is spent as per the sanction terms & conditions stipulated by the grant sanctioning authority. These grants will be utilized both for capital as well as revenue expenditure. The ld. AR also submitted that if the grant sanction authority ... grants sanction are tracked separately to ensure that the grants are applied for intended purposes as per the conditions stipulated by the grants sanctioning authority. Considering the arguments of both the parties, we are of the view that the issue needs to be factually verified to ascertain whether the grants

M/S Gokula Education Foundation Medical, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Government and other bodies are towards conducting research work and the amount is spent as per the sanction terms & conditions stipulated by the grant sanctioning authority. These grants will be utilized both for capital as well as revenue expenditure. The ld. AR also submitted that if the grant sanction authority ... grants sanction are tracked separately to ensure that the grants are applied for intended purposes as per the conditions stipulated by the grants sanctioning authority. Considering the arguments of both the parties, we are of the view that the issue needs to be factually verified to ascertain whether the grants

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

decision in the case of Prem Chand Shaw(Jaiswal) vs ACIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 139 (Calcutta) observed "that 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(a) when the reasons ... exact noting made by the approving authority. The Hon'ble court has held in paragraph no. 42 that mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render sanction granted u/s. 151 of the Act invalid 15 ITA NO. 456/MUM/2018

The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2797/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Joint Lessees Of Vs. Ito – 20(2)(1), Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Ii Floor,Lalbaug, Lalbaug Industrial Mumbai – 400012 Estate, Dr B.A. Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 20(2)(1) Vs. The Joint Lessees Of Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Ii Floor,Lalbaug, 1St Floor, Estate Bldg Mumbai – 400012 Lalbaug Industrial Estate, Dr B.A.Road, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj7202Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant /Respondent By Shri G.P Mehta.Ar : Respondent/Appellant By Shri T. Shankar.Dr : Date Of Hearing 11.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153Section 24(1)(a)Section 50C

Since the issue pertains to A.Y 2007-08, the revenue has expressed the difficulty in providing the records/material to verify the factual aspects on sanctioning authority. We find that the ITA No. 2797 & 3203/Mum/2016 The Joint Lessees of Industrial Estate, Mumbai. assessee has filed the return of income

Priya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7303/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Delhi. case was reopened under section 147 of the IT Act. The reasons recorded by the A.O was got approved from the sanctioning authority u/s 151 of the IT Act who after recording his satisfaction approved the case for reopening. Under these circumstances, the case laws relied upon

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issue of notice u/s 148. 36. Further, it is the case of the Ld.AR 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 ... Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT 383 ITR 597, 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2399/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Gajendra Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 608/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Ward-1(2), 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan:Bwgpg2614B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Yakyar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

taxmann.com 336/232 Taxman 414 (Delhi). 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 ... Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339/238 Taxman 423/383 ITR 597, 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

taxmann.com 336 (Delhi). 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 of approval ... Court in Prem Chand Shah (Jaiswal) v. Asst. CIT [2016] 383 ITR 597 (Cal) ; [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Cal), 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