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

M/S. Hardev Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.408/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) M/S Hardev Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle Ii(I), Kolkata 8/2A, Garcha 2Nd Lane, Ballygunge, S.O. Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Pan No. Aabch1827J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dipu Koley, Adl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 148 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Bonafide. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 148 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Pressed At The Time Of Hearing By The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Is Against The Invalid Approval Accorded For Issuing Notice

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, Adl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sunidhi Securities & Finance The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 4(2)(1), Mumbai 8Th Floor, Unit-1, Kalpataru Inspire, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Santacruz K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (East), Mumbai – 400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs1657D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shashi Bekal : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Of Reopening The Assessment Merely Based On Reason To Suspect & Not Reason To Believe & Is Therefore Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Treating The Trading In Steel Exchange India Limited Through Recognized Stock Exchange As Bogus Trading Loss. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited

For Appellant: Shri. Shashi Bekal
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 250