“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

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

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

Essen Consulting, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7511/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

with section 151 of the Act dated 30/06/2021. The notice U/s 148 is enclosed in APB page-14. Further, it was submitted that the sanctioning authority granting prior approval for issuance of the said notice was the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- 19, Mumbai (hereinafter referred ... challenged the validity of such approval on the ground that the Ld. Pr. CIT-19 was not the competent sanctioning authority for the issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act. It was contended that the approval accorded by Pr. CIT-19 vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings, rendering

Essen Consulting, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7510/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. - India Branch (Amalgamated With Natwest Markets Plc - India Branch), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., International Taxation - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1325/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1325/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) The Royal Bank Of Scotland Vs Dcit, International Taxation- N.V.-India Branch(Amalgamated 2(1), Kolkata With Natwest Markets Plc-India Branch) 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-16 Pan No. :Aacca 6818 K

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

order as well as the notice are issued on 22 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 of the Act has been ... 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 provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only with

Parthasarathi Prabakaran, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3111/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on 19.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 41. The provisions of Section 151 defines the sanctioning authority and the relevant provisions as it stood at that point in time reads as under: “151. Specified authority for the purposes of section

The Tiruchendur Co-Op Primary Co-Op Society, Tiruchendur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tuticorin

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3295/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35D

order as well as the notice are issued on April 7, 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax as provided under section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to section

Jayam Enterprises, Salem vs. Itd, Ward 1(1), Salem

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3123/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3123/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

Mr. Harivijay Pralhad Joshi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2297/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2297/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Harivijay Prahlad Joshi, V The Income Tax 3 & 4, Megh Terrace 55 S Officer, Rambaug, Colony, Behind Ward-3(3), Pune. Chaitanya Health Club, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aappj9257M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – (Virtual) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

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 22nd 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

Subbiah Murugavel, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2689/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on 19.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 41. The provisions of Section 151 defines the sanctioning authority and the relevant provisions as it stood at that point in time reads as under: Subbiah Murugavel :- 3 -: “151. Specified authority for the purposes

Mamraj Aggarwal, Delhi Sadar Bazar, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 47(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3864/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69C

notice /order was issued on 18-07-2022 after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment Year, the sanctioning authority should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from

Suresh Kumar, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, W-4, Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain,CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 28Section 56

f20201115 taxmann.com 338 (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 A.Y.2015-16 6 not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when

Tushar Vipinchandra Shukla, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1654/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 80G

case of reopening beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the competent sanctioning authority is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. In the present case, approval was accorded only by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)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 competent authority to authorize reassessment

ITO, New Delhi vs. Ruptex Mineral Water Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection filed by Assessee are allowed

ITA 3073/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ruptex Mineral Water Private New Delhi. Limited, K No. 799/1 Village Burari Jagatpur B.O. Jagatpur New Delhi. Pin: 1100 84, Delhi Pan :Aabcr0261Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

assessee relates to assessment year 2017-18 and notice dated 27.04.2021 was issued after a period of three years of relevant assessment years. The sanctioning authority should have been Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner but in this case the approval has been ... notice /order was issued on 28-07-2022 after a period of three years from the end of o relevant assessment Year, the sanctioning authority should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from

Rakesh Divedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3290/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

Kamlesh Kukreja, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 119/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

dated 27.07.2022. Referring to the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, he submitted that the proper sanctioning authority is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in the instant case the Assessing Officer has obtained the approval from the PCIT, therefore, such approval

Maithan Ceramic Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 269S

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

basis and establish non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer; (e) that the approval accorded under section 151 of the Act by the sanctioning authority was perfunctory, cryptic and in a mechanical manner, stating "yes I am satisfied.......", without 7 any recorded discussion, deliberation, OR independent application of mind ... from Investigation Wing, Kolkata, without verifying the transactions of appellant’s share capital and applying independent mind thereto. Non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority, i.e., PCIT while according approval to issue notice u/s. 148, vitiates the entire proceedings. In such state of affairs, the impugned notice issued under

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society, Hisar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5114/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

regime from 1st April, 2021 and in the compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of Ashish Aggarwal (supra), the sanctioning Authorities should have been Pr. Chief Commissioner or Pr. Director General or the Chief Commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from ... notice/order was issued on 28- 07-2022 after a period of three years from the end of o relevant assessment Year, the sanctioning authority should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner