“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

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

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,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or venfication which should have been made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Sonal Narain, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2797/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Sonal Narain, 201-202, 2Nd Floor, Ghaziabad Near Purani Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Up (Pan: Aaopg9123G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Rai, CA

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69

placed before me by the Ld. DR in this regard, the identical issue in favour of the Department. Further, it is noted that Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Ghaziabad while submitting the Statement of Facts has admitted that the tax effect involved is Rs. 7,23,386/- which

Santosh Rani Legal Heir of Late Sh Parveen Kalyan, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4770/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 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

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3075/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 254(2)Section 68

Geeta Gulia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

ITA 939/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

illegal and bad in law, the approval for its issuance having been obtained from PCIT-1, Jaipur, in place of Principal Chief Commissioner or the alternative specified authority as provided under clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act. 3 Geeta Gulia vs. ITO 6. As noticed above, the matter ... provisions of section 151, where a period of more than 3 years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director Generalor Chief CIT or Director General shall

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Riddhesh Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 974/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya with Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, ARs

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Riddhesh Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 973/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya with Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, ARs

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

Sanjay Kumar Bhutra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 261/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Sanjay Kumar Bhutra………...……………………….……….……….……Appellant Geeta Katra, 1, Mullick St., 1St Floor, Burrabazar, Kol- 7.. [Pan: Ahspb7216J] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

More than three years Principal Chief new regime have elapsed from the Commissioner or end of the relevant Principal Director assessment year General or Chief Commissioner or Director General 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued ... 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

Advantage India, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi

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

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

also drew our attention to Notification no 53/2014 dated 22.10.2014 u/s 120 of the Income Tax Act which directed that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi Income Tax (Exemption), shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in Territorial areas of Delhi or of such persons or classes of persons ... necessary to quote the provision of section 127 which is as under: "127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner way, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever

Kranti Electric Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (4) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 411/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raju Manek, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

opened by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act through ITBA system on 18.03.2019 (after recording reasons) after obtaining approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Rajkot and duly served upon the assessee. In reply, the assessee has filed return of income and declaring total income

Kranti Electric Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (4) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 410/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Raju Manek, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)

Lenient Consultants Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2331/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 JTR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held ... therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in-built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that

Puneet Kulthia, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 154

case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held ... therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in-built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that