“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

Sunita Ramesh Dhanani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sunita Ramesh Dhanani Ito – 22(3)(6), Mumbai 9 Alankarchs, Senapatibapat Marg Vs Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Ajapd9146R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)

case is reopening is beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, the approval of reasons recorded should be approved by Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax (Pr CCIT) or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, the assessing officer obtained approval from ... competent sanctioning authority as per section 151(ii) of amended provision. The assessing officer was required to obtain approval / sanction from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that copy of notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is placed on record

Pramod Shivram Sawant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 3420/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Pramod Shivram Sawant Assessment Unit, Income Tax Room No. 8, 129/139, C Wing, Chandra Vs Department, Mumbai Terrace, Khadilkar Road, Girgaon, Mumbai-400004. [Pan No. Awpps4139P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 144ASection 148Section 148ASection 254(1)

case of assessee was reopened beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, therefore, as per amended provision, the sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) was required, however, the assessing officer obtained the sanction from Pr. CIT. Thus, approval / sanction is invalid once notice under ... which was beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, therefore, assessing officer was required to obtain approval from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. As the sanction was obtained from Pr. CIT, therefore, notice under section 148 is invalid consequently

Packswell Combine Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarpackswell Combine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner 602, 6Th Floor, Amrit ‘A’ Of Income Tax Officer, Carter Road, Khar Danda, Central Circle 6(4), Khar (W), Mumbai- 400052 Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp3076C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 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 ... been obtained under 0the amended provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, i.e the approval should have been obtained from the Learned Pr. Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Learned Pr. CIT Central -3, Mumbai as stated in the notice

Deepak Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3355/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

from the end of relevant assessment year; the necessary sanction ought to have been obtained not from the Principal Commissioner but from the “Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director……………., as the case may be”. 4. I notice in this factual backdrop that the instant clinching issue i.e. the learned “prescribed ... authority” as to whether it should be the jurisdictional commissioner or Principal Commissioner under section 151(i) or the Principal Chief Commissioner under clause (ii) of the Act, as the case may be, is no more res-integra as per hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Union

Neha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1728/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Neha Goel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-22/35, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajspb1120D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

assessment year; the necessary sanction ought to have been obtained not from the Principal Commissioner but from the 2 | P a g e “Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director……………., as the case may be”. 4. I notice in this factual backdrop that the instant clinching issue i.e. the learned “prescribed ... authority” as to whether it should be the jurisdictional commissioner or Principal Commissioner under section 151(i) or the Principal Chief Commissioner under clause (ii) of the Act, as the case may be, is no more res-integra as per hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Union

Shri Panchtalavada Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli., Amreli

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 118/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.118/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Panchtalavada Seva Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम Mandali Ltd. 3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli, Panchtalavada, Amreli–3650220, Ganga Bhauvan, Keriya /Vs. Gujarat Road, Amreli–365 560 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Aaxas 4713 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 06.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises, Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc)/Assessing Officer, U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 08.02.2021. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Has Stated That The Assessee Wants To Withdraw The Present Appeal Because Condonation Of Delay For Filing Income Tax Return U/S 119(2)(B) Of The Act Has Been Condoned Sh. Pssm Ltd.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

condonation of delay for filing income tax return u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act has been condoned Sh. PSSM Ltd. by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, CCIT, Rajkot. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue submits that he has no objection, if the Bench permits

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 815/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax. Finally, books of account impounded during survey will not be retained over ten days, without the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner. The said position was further clarified by CBDT vide Circular No. 10 dated 2003, which clearly stated that focus and concentration should

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 814/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 813/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 811/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 810/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 809/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

M/S Banna Lal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the penalty to the

ITA 1569/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 250Section 271ASection 274

course 6 M/s Banna Lal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bilwara. 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 (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either

M/S Karia Builders, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 2401/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)Section 296S

lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year 2017-18, therefore, the competent authority for granting approval is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 13. However, in the instant case the approval has been granted by the Principal Commissioner ... 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 Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year

Bhagwan Vardhman Shwetamber Murtipujak Tapagacch Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner Income Tax, (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2378/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 263

functions of an Assessing Officer 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

Ankit Gupta, Punjabi Bagh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 5310/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5310/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम Ankit Gupta, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, House No.11, Road No.29, Vs. Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Agypg8404C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 153(6)Section 153CSection 156Section 157ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

157A had not been sanctioned. If a notice is issued manually, the concerned AO must provide written reasons and obtain prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax. 8. That, the Ld. AO has raised an incorrect demand (inclusive of interest) against the Appellant. Moreover ... taxmann.com 497 (Delhi); • Bhagwan Sahai Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi); • Sheetal International (P) ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2024] 168 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi). 4. Ld. Counsel further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Aditya Gupta, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1503/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Aditya Gupta Pcit (Central)-1, 8/48, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Room No.338, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Amzpg2185M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 54F

committed any error of law by following the same view. 8. Even otherwise, as per section 263 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed ... Madras High Court in its judgment dated 01.04.2024 has held as follows: “8. Even otherwise, as per section 263 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

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 verification which should have been made

Jan Seva Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3445/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay under Section ... years where there is a delay of upto 365 subsequent assessment years where there is a delay of upto 365 days. 1.2 the Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (Tr. CCsIT’)/ Chief the Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (Tr. CCsIT’)/ Chief the Pr. Chief Commissioners of Income