Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.284

Section 151(1) falls under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(1) is Gurpal Singh v. ITO (159 ITD 797), cited in 58 of the 102 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 151(1)

Gurpal Singh v. ITO
159 ITD 797 · 2016 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

Mere cash deposits in a bank account, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind on reasons to believe, are not sufficient grounds to invoke jurisdiction under Section 147 for reassessment proceedings.

Voltas Ltd. v. ACIT
349 ITR 656 · 2012 · High Court
25
citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 is time-barred and deserves to be quashed if no allegation is made against the assessee for failure to disclose material facts, and the AO's assertion of no prior assessment is contrary to the record. The jurisdiction assumed under section 147 is without lawful basis in such circumstances.

Ashish Plastic Industries v. ACIT
373 ITR 451 · Reported
14
citing judgments

An assessee must be allowed credit for income surrendered and disclosed in another year or by another group assessee to avoid impermissible double taxation.

Dhadda Exports v. ITO
58 Taxmann.com 176 · 2015 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Sanction for issuing a notice under Section 148 is required under Section 151(1). A notice issued without valid sanction is void ab initio and the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed.

91 (Guj), (iv) CIT v. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd.
71 Taxmann.com 275 · 2016 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Assessment. Ingram Micro (India) Exports (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
78 Taxmann.com 140 · 2017 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Hindutan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT
269 ITR 186 · 2004 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Sidhmicro Equities (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
150 Taxmann.com 460 · 2023 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Foramer v. CIT
119 Taxmann 61 · 2001 · High Court
4
citing judgments
Balakrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO
403 ITR 196 · 2018 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 151(1)

Kajal Fashionwear Agency Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/CTK/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.286/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Kajal Fashionwear Agency Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Private Limited, Plot No-73 &74/353, Jaya Dev Vihar ,Bhubaneswar, 751013 Pan No. : Aadck 5326 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/06/2024 Passed In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar-1/10363/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Has Been Issued On 23.03.2018. It Is Admittedly Beyond The Four Years Period. It Was The Submission That The Reopening Has Been Done On The Basis Of Some Information Received From The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata. It Was Submission That As The Reopening Has Been Done Beyond The Four Years Period, The Approval For Reopening Is To Be Granted By The Ld. Pcit. It Was Submission That The Ld. Pcit Has Not Given The Approval, Though The Said Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Mentions The Same. The Ld. Ar Drew My Attention To Pages 5 & 6 Of The Paper Book, Which Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 148

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)