“specified authority”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 1511,163 judgments

The decision most relied on for specified authority is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (221 ITR 538), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on specified authority

(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.

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.

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

299 ITR 305 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

Bar Association v. State of U P

6 SCC 267 · 2024 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court, when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. This power allows the Court to issue directions that may modify or waive certain procedural mandates, such as those related to reassessment notices.

Dass Khanna v. ITO

460 ITR 546 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The authority required to grant prior approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings varies based on the applicable time limit for reassessment, as limitation is inextricably intertwined with the rank of the specified approving authority.

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

463 ITR 702 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The validity of sanction for issuing orders under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 must be tested with reference to the amended section 151. If sanction is not granted by an authority specified under section 151(ii), such orders and notices are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Vikas Gupta v. Union of India

142 Taxmann.com 253 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

The signing of a notice or document by the specified authority is a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cannot be treated as an empty formality. Approval under section 151 requires the signature, name, and designation of the specified authority.

Judgments citing specified authority

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

section 148A of the Act were carried out and order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 28.07.2022 after the approval of specified authority. Consequently, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022. Assessee filed return of income on 10.08.2022 in response thereof, declaring same total ... 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT, Mumbai-8 which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 (amended with effect from 1-4-2021) who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3405/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

Ashish Agarwal, assessee was provided an opportunity of hearing before passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act dated 29.07.2022 with prior approval of specified authority. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee did not file his return of income ... 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT-27. Mumbai which was not the correct specified authority' as per Section 151 (amended with effect from 1-4- 2021) who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from

Shirish Devendra Kejriwal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6389/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Priyavrat Gupta, AR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69A

upholding the order of the AO as the learned AO erred in issuing the notice u/s.148 without obtaining the valid sanction from the specified authority u/s 151, thereby the consequential re-assessment order u/s. 147 is bad in law: 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Smt. Pinky Jhawar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No

ITA 552/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 552/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

148A i.e., conduct enquiry, provide opportunity before issue of notice u/s 148, (a) That the learned AO ha failed to obtain prior approval of specified authority before commencing the enquiry u/s 148A(a). (b) That the learned AO failed to provide proper opportunity of being heard as investigated u/s 148A

Dolphin Promoters and Builders, Raipur vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Raipur

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

thus, are of the view that as the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Bilaspur in absence of any order passed by the specified authority u/s. 120(4)(b) of the Act had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment in the case of the assessee company before us, therefore, the calling into

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

address given on the PAN Database. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings in accordance with section 148A read with section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was obtained at every stage. The petitioner chose not to file reply to the notice and hence

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

with section 149/151. The approval of section 148A read with section 149/151. The approval of section 148A read with section 149/151. The approval of specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section 151 of Act, 1961 was specified authority as per section

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai vs. Devang Ajit Javeri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 4498/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

above SCN 5 30/07/2022 Order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act vide DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1044337364(1) with the prior approval of specified authority but without mentioning which of the two as none is mentioned thereon. 6 30/07/2022 However, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued vide ... finally notice u/s.148 has been issued on 30/07/2022 which as per the new provision which was applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2021, the specified authority for the purpose of Section 148 and Section 148A, if the notice has been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on

ITA 4497/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 3510/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

Devang Ajit Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on

ITA 3509/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

assessment for this assessment year is bad in law as the assessee has not been furnished with the copy of the approval of the specified authority along with the order under section 148A(d). 4. The CIT(Appeals), National FacelessAssessment Centre is not justified in denying the claim for deduction

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 437/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

Nkg Infrastructure Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajeev Malik, Vs Acit, Central, 26/28, East Patel Nagar, International Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 008. New Delhi. Pan: Agbpm6372N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation-2(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2016-17. 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Amongst Other Grounds On Merits, The Assessee Has Raised Ground No.2 As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 3

follows:- 2 “5.2.4 The AO shall conduct enquiry u/s. 148 A (a), if required, before issuing Notice u/s. 148 with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thereafter, the AO shall provide opportunity to the assessee ... specified time under the said provisions. Notice u/s 148A(b) issued up to 31.03.2022 had to be issued after obtaining approval from specified authority. However, the approval at this stage is done away with w.e.f. 01.04.2022. After considering the reply of the assessee received, if any, the AO will decide

Mr. Ramlal G. Suthar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 3224/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ramlal G Suthar Vs Ito, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar A/704, Riddhi Siddhi Complex Near S.T. Stand, M.G. Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Sukarwadi, Borivali (E), 020 Mumbai-400 066 Pan :Afvpm2258J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagve (SR DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

regime. The provisions of section 151 of the Act under the new regime read as under: Sanction for issue of notice. 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, — (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

arbitrary exercise of power by an assessing officer in assessing income of the assessee u/s 147 of the Ac and recording of satisfaction, by specified authority, with regard to the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuance of notice u/s 148, is one of such safeguards. Accordingly, no notice ... shall be issued by the assessing officer unless the specified authority (PCIT in the current case), is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer concerned, that it is a fit case for the issue of notice. 3. Furthermore, the power vested with the PCIT to grant

Pernia Qureshi Consultancy Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-07, New Delhi

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

ITA 992/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292BSection 45Section 54

Ajit Gupta 383 ITR 361 (Del). ii) Secondly, the assessee challenged the grant of approval u/s 151 by specified Authority as without Page 3 of 20 ITA No. 992/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Sanjeev Garg reading the contents of the reasons and without application of mind. iii) the Assessing Officer

Davos International Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri DhavalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 68

notice. Assessee's reply was considered and order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 04.04.2022. Notice u/s 148 was also issued on 04.04.2022. 2. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A has been provided in section 151, which reads as under - 151. Specified authority ... section (1) of section 149.] Relied proviso 3 to section 149(1) of the I.T. Act. (Emphasis supplied) 3. Section 151 provides that Specified Authority shall be Commissioner, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, this period