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

Shri Satyaveer Singh, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wadr-1, Bharatpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 975/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Satyaveer Singh, Cuke I.T.O., S/O- Sh. Roop Singh, Vill-Barso, Vs. Ward-1, Bharatpur (Raj)-321001. Bharatpur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Cmbps 4345 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Alwar Dated 28/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That The Notice Issued U/S 147 Is Per Se Illegal, Arbitrary & Ab-Initio Void & Invalid & Therefore Deserve To Be Quashed & Annulled. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2017 Is Per Se Illegal & Invalid. 3. That The A.O. & Cit(A), Alwar Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Amount Of Rs. 12,22,000/- As Unexplained Money & Making An Addition Of Rs. 12,22,000/- U/S 69A..”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Jap Infracon Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8038/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 8038/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3)(1) B-102, Twinkle Apt, New Link Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacp3809P अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay Daga प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-21, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/It-873/Ito-12(3)(1)/2017-18 Vide Dated 24.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter „The Act‟). 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Upholding The Validity Of Assessment Of 2 Jap Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; Ay 10-11 Jurisdiction Under Section 147 Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Following Two Grounds:-

For Appellant: S/Shri R C Jain & Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151