“Chief Commissioner”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(15A) / Section 1172,876 judgments

The decision most relied on for Chief Commissioner is Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 296), cited in 98 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Chief Commissioner

Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

93 Taxmann.com 296 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 must reflect due application of mind. A mere endorsement of "approved" without reasons or reference to material is insufficient, as the approval serves as a safeguard and must be meaningful, not ritualistic or formal.

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.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner

1 SCC 405 · 1978 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When a statutory authority issues an order based on specific grounds, its validity must be assessed solely by those stated grounds and cannot be supported or improved by additional reasons provided later in affidavits or other means. An order that is invalid at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent justifications.

Sahara India v. CIT & Others

216 CTR 303 · 2008 · Reported

citing judgments

The requirement of prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 142(2A) is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary assessment, placing a significant responsibility on the approving authority to ensure its genuine application and prevent it from becoming a mere formality.

New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

448 ITR 594 · 2022 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An institution qualifies as an 'educational institution' for tax exemption, including under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), only if it imparts structured, formal education, distinguishing it from general public utility activities under Section 2(15).

Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise

280 ITR 321 · 2006 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, this power does not normally extend to creating an offence or penal liability retroactively, nor to withdrawing a benefit already granted under a statute through retrospective amendment.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT

315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has no power to cancel registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act retrospectively, especially when there is no express provision in the Act for such cancellation and the order is quasi-judicial in nature.

Judgments citing Chief Commissioner

Imran Majeed, Srinagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

ITA 585/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

notice issued u/s 148 on 04.04.2022 is bad in law, since the approval required u/s 151 was required to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General instead ... year 2018-19, and the sanctioning authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act 61, (as per amended finance Act 2022 ) should have been “ Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax” (and not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax), and in the instant case the notice u/s 148 dated 4th April

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Jugal Kishore Garg Alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, Jaipur

10. In view of the provisions of section 271D, 271E and 275(1) of the Act,

ITA 1320/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the 75 [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 75[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order ... financial year in which the order of 76% [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the "[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or "[Principal Com-missioner or] Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Jugal Kishore Garg Alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, Jaipur

10. In view of the provisions of section 271D, 271E and 275(1) of the Act,

ITA 1319/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Jugal Kishore Garg Alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, Jaipur

10. In view of the provisions of section 271D, 271E and 275(1) of the Act,

ITA 1318/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipurq, Jaipur vs. Jugal Kishore Garg Alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, Jaipur

ITA 1317/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

subsequent assessment years where there is a delay of upto 365 days. It has been further provided that the Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (Pr.CCsIT)/ Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCsIT)/ Director Generals of Income Tax (DGsIT) to admit and deal 6 with applications for condonation of delay

Rakesh, Copernicus Marg vs. ITO Ward 43, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6481/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Rakesh, D-65, Pinces Park, Ward-43, Copernicus Marg, Delhi Delhi Pan: Bwppr4036R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Shikhar Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Authority had obtained the necessary approval from the PCIT, Delhi-15 than the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or…………………………., if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from ... relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant

Sathi Bhai Sathyavrithan, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 68(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6274/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sathi Bhai Sathyavrithan, Rz 31-32, Roshan Mandi Ward-68(1), Surya Kiran Hospital, New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi Pan: Ayqps2816L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Assessing Authority had obtained the necessary approval from the PCIT, Delhi than the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or……………………., if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from ... relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant

Neelam Jain, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vs. Jyoti Mediservices Ltd., Allahabad

ITA 129/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 115/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 114/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

Jyoti Mediservices Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

ITA 113/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

Discovery Digital Network Private Limited, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik

ITA 2886/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 23Section 234DSection 244A

where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the 52 [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 52[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final. 4.7 In the case of State Bank of India v. Chief Commissioner of Income

K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2092/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Any Other Issue.

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under ... Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

Section 3, for Deputy Commissioner" (w.e.f. 1.10.1998).][, Commissioner (Appeals)] [Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 39 and Schedule V (w.e.f. 10.7.1978).][, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144-C] [ Substituted ... Section 50, for " and Chief Commissioner or Commissioner" (w.e.f. 1.10.2009).] shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) discovery

Shambhu Dayal Soni, Ramganj Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151(2)Section 69A

Assessing Officer on 25/7/2022 with the approval of Principal Commissioner-1, Jaipur whereas the approval required u/s 151(2) should have been of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Pr. DGIT, hence, the order passed is ab initio void. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances ... Learned Assessing Officer with the approval of Principal Commissioner-1, Jaipur whereas the approval required u/s 151(2) should have been of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Pr. DGIT, hence, the notice issued is ab initio void. Additional Ground No.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1502/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta Ito, Ward 1(1), Nashik Flat No.8, Pooja Apartment, Vs. Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik – 422003 Pan: Aghpb1619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish M. Mehta Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 68

relevant assessment year, therefore, the specified approving authority as per provisions of section 151 of the Act is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General 6 then, the Chief Commissioner or Director General. He submitted that since ... after three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, Ld. AO is required to take approval u/s 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax and other Officers mentioned in section 151(ii). However Ld. AO in the instant case has taken the approval from the authorities

ITO(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 3674/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

resulting into issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act being bad in law. 4. ought to have appreciated that either approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to be obtained as per section 151 (ii) of the Act as amended by Finance ... 27th May 2023 Notice u/s 142(1) issued wherein Approval of 156-157 Tax. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income International Taxation. New Delhi dated 27th July 2022 for order u/s 148A(d) and issued of notice u/s 148 was provided 18. 30th May 2023 Draft assessment order u/s 144C

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Kautilya Bhawan vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3523/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 3Section 3(1)

resulting into issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act being bad in law. 4. ought to have appreciated that either approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to be obtained as per section 151(ii) of the Act as amended by Finance ... notice u/s 143(2) of 154-155 the Act 17. 27th May 2023 Notice u/s 142(1) issued wherein Approval of 156-157 Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. International Taxation. New Delhi dated 27th July 2022 for order u/s 148A(d) and issued of notice u/s 148 was provided