← 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

Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal Accoutant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of A-139, Meera Bagh New Income Tax Circle 43(1) Delhi 110087 Pan No. Acrpc1266D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 156Section 157ASection 69

issued on 19-07-2022 after a period of three years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, the sanctioning authority as per the section 151(ii) of the Act should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval

Shabbir Taheri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

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 proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with ... well as the notice are issued on 5"h 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 inserted

Aptiva Middle East Fze, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1221/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

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 proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with ... well as the notice are issued on 5"h 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 inserted

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

assessment and the AO has reopened the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction b. Approval under section 151 was granted mechanically by the Sanctioning authority. It is further submitted that not only the learned AO acted mechanically in following the information from DDIT inv wing unit-2 Jaipur ... directions, even the sanctioning authority namely JCIT also erred in granting approval without appreciating the facts of the case which have been discussed above and are repeated again. The facts regarding the issue involved are enumerated hereunder chronologically. 1. Medical Design India Pvt. limited was allotted a Plot

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval granted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 which read as under

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval granted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 which read as under

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval granted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 which read as under

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval granted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 which read as under

Motibhai Lallubhai Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Mona Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 151

originally issued on 15.06. 2021within the extended time as per TOLA.However,notices u/s 148A(d) and 148 were issued only on 29.07.2022.The sanctioning authority in this case was Pr.CIT-3,Mumbai which should have been Pr.CCIT instead as per the amended provisions of the Act. Thus, the notice

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. ITO Ward3(1), Income Tax Office Azamgarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

action of authorities was totally arbitrary as the same proceeds on non-existent allegation and even while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act, sanctioning authority has also mechanically and without application of mind and without ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 5 of 9 looking the material on record

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

action of authorities was totally arbitrary as the same proceeds on non-existent allegation and even while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act, sanctioning authority has also mechanically and without application of mind and without ITA Nos.125/VNS/2023 & ITA Nos.126/VNS/2023 Page 5 of 9 looking the material on record

M/S. Sunglow Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

valid approval as the same is given without independent application of mind and without recording the satisfaction of the ld. PCCIT the sanctioning authority. The said mechanism of approval by the senior authority u/s 151 of the /act has been provided a safeguard against any wrong or invalid re-opening

M/S. Sunglow Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 262/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

valid approval as the same is given without independent application of mind and without recording the satisfaction of the Id. PCCIT the sanctioning authority. The said mechanism of approval by the senior authority u/s 151 of the /act has been provided a safeguard against any wrong or invalid re-opening

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Soni Ajay Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3841/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri G. V. GindeFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250

only upto 30.06.2021. Undisputedly the notice u/s 148 in the impugned order of assessment was issued on 31.07.2022 on that date the appropriate sanctioning authority for issuance of this notice was Pr. Chief Commissioner of Pr. Director General or Chief commissioner or Director General. Admittedly the sanctioning authority for issuing

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

initio as the approval obtained under Section 151, was granted in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind by the competent authority. The sanctioning authority merely used the phrase "may be approved" instead of recording a categorical and reasoned satisfaction, which is a jurisdictional defect. The failure to properly

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 955/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

initio as the approval obtained under Section 151, was granted in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind by the competent authority. The sanctioning authority merely used the phrase "may be approved" instead of recording a categorical and reasoned satisfaction, which is a jurisdictional defect. The failure to properly

Late Shri Jitendra Nagar Through His L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Baran, Baran

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

issued on 02.07.2022, beyond the period of 3 years, which were elapsed on 31.03.2020. Accordingly, as per provisions of section 151(ii) the sanctioning authority under the new regime are Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief ... letter F.No. Pr. CIT- 1/RPR/Tech/2022-23 dated 28.06.2022. The aforesaid facts are on records and are not disputed by the revenue. Since, the issue of sanctioning authority is no more res integra, as has been specifically deliberated upon and guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Hemant Kumar, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5157/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklahemant Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-I 1829/B, Nai Basti, Model Town, Rewari – 123401 Rewari – 123401 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ghnpk1715A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 143ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 153DSection 69A

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 statutory functions and delightfully relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed

ACIT, Delhi vs. Helios Infrastructure and Projects Limited, Delhi

ITA 4724/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, approval under section 151 was granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind by Sanctioning Authority inasmuch as the approval under that section was granted without considering the binding judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case