“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

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

Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case ... case for the issue of such notice. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

Rajinder Prashad, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 5393/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5393/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Rajinder Prashad, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bd-4, 2Nd Floor, Pitampura, Ward-47(1), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpp2498A Assessee By: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca & Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

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 ... Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three

Amit Rohada and Sons, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota

14. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1260/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

appellant has pressed the second mentioned additional ground first i.e. approval granted u/s 151 of the Act was required to be granted by Principal Chief Commissioner , but, herein approval u/s 151 of the Act, was granted by Learned PCIT, not a specified authority to grant such approval, in the present

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1429/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

which is beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, as per section 151(ii), sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was required. However, the approval was accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-17, Mumbai, as evident from the notice ... Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1428/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the order of the Ld

ITA 194/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35ASection 40A(3)

this purpose, provision of section 263(1) of the Act along with the Explanation2 to the same are reproduced hereunder: 263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this ... deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— ITA No. 194/Ahd/2022 [ M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT

Dattaprasad Radhakisan Revgade, Hivargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1897/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra, Judicialmember & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1897/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dattaprasad Radhakisan V The Income Tax Officer, Revgade, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. At Hivargaon Post Dongargaon, Tal Aklole, Ahmednagar – 422609. Pan: Cddpr8213C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal -469 ITR 46, the sanction ought have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune which admittedly not obtained and hence, the said notice as well as consequential assessment order deserves to be quashed

Nashit Suhail Anshari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)

reopened beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and thus, the AO was required to obtain prior approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) and not of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The AO obtained approval

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

ITA 2506/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 148ASection 151

Delhi in the case of Rajesh Gupta HUF (supra) held that where reassessment is initiated after the expiry of three years, the Principal Chief Commissioner is the competent authority; therefore, sanction by PCIT would not sustain, accordingly, quashed the and the assessment order in following manners: “2. Before ... Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three

Dharambir, Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Delhi

ITA 2505/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147Section 147BSection 148Section 148ASection 151

Amarendra Financial Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

further, the provision of section 263 are to be considered which reads as under: 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this ... case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 525/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 276CSection 292B

Lucknow and thus the directions were issued to the CIT(A)-2, Lucknow. Vide aforementioned letter, the ld. CIT(A)-2 had requested the Chief Commissioner to kindly assign the case to him, since the post of CIT(A), Faizabad had been abolished. In consequence to this letter ... Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vide his letter C No.108/CIT(A), FZD(Tek)/2015/339 dated 15.06.2017, assigned the case to the CIT(A)-2, Lucknow for disposal of the appeal as per the directions of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, given vide its order dated 5.05.2017. Accordingly

Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3009/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bhavesh Jayanti Sondarwa Ito Ward 19(1)(1) A/1, 6Th Floor, Room No. 603 Room No. 501 Samrat Ashok Chs, S.K. Vs. Piramal Chambers Rathod Marg, Ambedkar Lalbaug, Parel Nagar, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 034. Pan : Cnpps2949G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gandhi, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

give approval to reopen the assessment depending on the time limits. After the expiry of three years the competent authority to issue approval is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas in this case the L. AO took approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Hence ... Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held that if the period crosses three years, the approval should be taken Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas in the impugned case, the Ld. AO obtained approval from Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam vs. Duvvuru Rekha Reddy, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 28.07.2022 without prior approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax being the appropriate authority in terms of S.151(ii) of the Act is invalid". 8. We admit the legal ground raised ... Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three

Pankaj Kumar Mittal, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 44A

Paper Book) Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN incase of Bijendra Singh v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 162 taxmann.com 66 (Rajasthan) held that “Where Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice under section 148A(b) dated 16-3-2022 calling upon ... Paper Book). Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN in case of Bijendra Singh v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 162 taxmann.com 66 (Rajasthan) held that "Where Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice under section 1484(b) dated 16-3-2022 calling

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

without following the procedure laid down under section 148A of the Act including as required under section 151 of the Act from The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who is the Competent Authority to accord the sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, has issued ... under section 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, then, the approval for issue of such notice should be from the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas in the present case, the Assessing Officer has obtained approval

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 1233/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

record reveals that the request for approval under section 151 of the Act in a printed format was placed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax ["PCCIT'] on 20-3-2023. PCCIT granted the approval the same day. The approval accorded by the PCCIT in Column

Exel Rubber Private Limited, K.V.Rangareddy vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1109/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

record reveals that the request for approval under section 151 of the Act in a printed format was placed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income