Section 151 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.284

Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 284 (Sanction for issue of notice) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 284 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 151 is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 of the 4,323 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 151

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal
469 ITR 46 · 2024 · Supreme Court
713
citing judgments

The legal fiction created by the Ashish Agarwal judgment stops the limitation clock for Section 148 notices from the date of the deemed notice. Orders issued without proper jurisdiction, or those inconsistent with statutory prescriptions, are a nullity, and there can be no waiver of such fundamental jurisdictional requirements.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.
387 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
670
citing judgments

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Judgments on Section 151

Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Junagadh-Una vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 881/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Mandali Limited, Vs. Baudin College Road, Village-Bandharda, Taluka-Una, Junagadh, Gujarat-362565 Junagadh, Gujarat-362565, "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagas5227E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2026 :: Order :: Per, 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 09.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, On 05.03.2024. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Reopening The Assessment Under 148 Of The Act. The Reopening Of The Assessment Is Not Justified. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Reopening The Assessment Under 148 Of The Act. The Reopening Is Beyond The Powers Of The Jao.

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 80P

Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the different assessees in ITA

ITA 800/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 799/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Parulben Jerambhai Parsana, Income Tax Officer, Tirupati-7 "Manglam", Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Bh. Malharhall Nr. Bram Aaykar Bhavan, Samaj, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aizpp0758R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 800/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan, The Assistant Commissioner Of Block No. 109, Puskardham Vs. Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Rajkot. Society, University Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agbpp3207C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2026 12/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80G

Parulben Jerambhai Parsana, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the different assessees in ITA

ITA 799/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 799/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Parulben Jerambhai Parsana, Income Tax Officer, Tirupati-7 "Manglam", Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Bh. Malharhall Nr. Bram Aaykar Bhavan, Samaj, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aizpp0758R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 800/Rjt/2025 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan, The Assistant Commissioner Of Block No. 109, Puskardham Vs. Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Rajkot. Society, University Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005 Gujarat-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agbpp3207C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2026 12/10/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80G