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

Jayton Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Jayton Trading Private Limited, Vs Dcit (Central)-2, Raipur 15, Crooked Lane, 1St Floor, Hare Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaacj 6659 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhopal, Dated 06.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Dated 06/07/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Dated 30/12/2019 Are Illegal & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Confirming That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Bad In Law. 2.1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Holding That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Time Barred By Limitation In View Of First Proviso To Section 147 Of The Act. 2.2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming The Reason Recorded U/S 148(2) Of The Act Though The Same Is Only A Change Of Opinion On Account Of Borrowed Satisfaction Without Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Soumya Tradecom Pvt Ltd (Erst. Soumya Infratech (P)Ltd.), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1095/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-24(1), New Delhi M/S Soumya Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., (Erst. Soumya Infratech (P) Ltd.,) Vs. Room No. 91, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, South Delhi, Delhi 110019 Pan Aalcs 1040 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sunil Kuamr Gupta, Ca Revenue For : Shri Raghunath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Dated 07.07.2020 For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 4,97,14,844/- Made On Account Of Share Application Mony & Share Capital." 2. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Take Notice Of The Reason Recorded Wherein The Then Ao Had Mentioned Amount Of Rs. 4,43,84,8441- & While Framing Of Reason, The Ao Had Mentioned Escapement Of Income At Least Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Which Has Broader Prospective. 3. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That "Approved" Connotes That Competent Authority Has Read & Understood Fully The Proposal Proposed By Ao & He Is Satisfied That The Case Is Fir For Reopening Us 148 Of The I.T. Act." 4. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Bogus Nature Of Transactions As The Assessee Company Did Not Provide Relevant Documents Before A To Establish The Genuineness Of The Transactions So Undertaken." 5. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That Onus Of Proving Transaction As Bogus Nature On Ao Comes Only After Discharge Of Onus By Assessee By Giving All Relevant Documents Which Assessee Failed To Discharge During Assessment Proceedings. Application Of Revenue Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 255 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kuamr Gupta, CA
Section 151