← All Phrases

“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
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.

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah
299 ITR 305 · 2008 · High Court
80
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
70
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
41
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
32
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
27
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

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1272/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income-tax Act. …… 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping ... jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

notice issued u/s 148 as well as the order passed u/s 148A(d) as bad in law for want of approval of the specified authority as provided in section 151(ii) of the I.T. Act. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that since the seized material ... carried out prior to or at the time of recording the satisfactions and reasons as well as while obtaining the requisite approvals of the specified authority. The Assessing Officer has not done this exercise before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, the same suffers from an inherent lack

DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and CO, stand infructuous

ITA 1990/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.1988 To 1990/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Circle-19(1), 19, Rajendra Park, New Delhi. D-26, Kapashera Pushpanjali, Delhi – 110 060. Pan: Aaecp4424C Co Nos.84 & 85/Del/2023 (Ita No.1989 & 1990/Del/2020) Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 19, Rajendra Park, Circle-19(1), D-26, Kapashera Pushpanjali, New Delhi Delhi – 110 060. Pan: Aaecp4424C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate & Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)

power is vested with the Assessing Officer. On going through the established judgment, it cannot be disputed that the statutory powers vested with one specified authority cannot be i exercised by another 10 ITAs No.1988 to 1990/Del/2020 CO’s No.84 & 85/Del/2023 authority unless and until the statute provides ... JCIT is required before levy of such penalty. Thus, we find that the statute has accorded implementation of the various provisions to specified authorities which cannot be interchanged. A power which has been given to a specified authority has to be discharged only by him. Substitution of that officer/authority

DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and CO, stand infructuous

ITA 1988/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.1988 To 1990/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Circle-19(1), 19, Rajendra Park, New Delhi. D-26, Kapashera Pushpanjali, Delhi – 110 060. Pan: Aaecp4424C Co Nos.84 & 85/Del/2023 (Ita No.1989 & 1990/Del/2020) Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 19, Rajendra Park, Circle-19(1), D-26, Kapashera Pushpanjali, New Delhi Delhi – 110 060. Pan: Aaecp4424C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate & Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)

power is vested with the Assessing Officer. On going through the established judgment, it cannot be disputed that the statutory powers vested with one specified authority cannot be i exercised by another 10 ITAs No.1988 to 1990/Del/2020 CO’s No.84 & 85/Del/2023 authority unless and until the statute provides ... JCIT is required before levy of such penalty. Thus, we find that the statute has accorded implementation of the various provisions to specified authorities which cannot be interchanged. A power which has been given to a specified authority has to be discharged only by him. Substitution of that officer/authority