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

Darshita Sureshkumar Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Jagadish(Physicalhearing) Darshita Sureshkumar Chauhan Ito, Ward – 42(1)(2), Mumbai A-12 Sahyadri Apt. L T Road, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Borivali West,Mumbai– 400092. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Artpc6384R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Dale Of Institution Of Appeal 21.05.2026 Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)Dated 04.04.2026 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: A. Reopening 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Which Is Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction, Void Ab Initio & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of Notice Issued U/S 148 & Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Despite The Fact That The Reopening Was Based On Incorrect Facts, Borrowed Satisfaction & Complete Non- Application Of Mind. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessing Officer Merely Relied Upon Information Uploaded On The Insight Portal / Rms Information & Investigation Wing Report Without Carrying Out Any Independent Enquiry Or Verification As Specifically Required In The Dissemination Note. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Reopening Despite The Fact That No Material Whatsoever Was Supplied Along With Notice U/S 148A(B), Including Alleged Incriminating Statements, Seized Material, Whatsapp Darshita Sureshkumar Chauhan

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)Section 68

Amey Madhav Baitule, India vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

ITA 8671/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Amey Madhav Baitule Ito, Ward – 3(1), Kalyan 01 Plot No. Rm 25, Kasturi Shilp, Vs Rani Mansion, Kalyan, Kalyan- Milap Nagar, Midc Residential Dombivali, Maharashtra – 421301. Zone, Dombivali, Thane, Maharashtra – 421203. [Pan: Bbupb5254K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjiv Brahme, Ca Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfacdated 28.10.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit (Appeal) Has Failed To Consider The Legal Point Raised By The Appellant That Notice U/S.148 Was Bad-In-Law & Has Been Done Mechanically. 2. The Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Ignoring Our Point With Regards To Approval By Prcit. 3. The Cit (Appeal) Has Failed To Consider The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice U/S 148 Is Bad In Law Since The Assessing Officer Has Not Received Any Fresh Material & He Had Earlier Issued Notice For Ay 2019-20, Which He Had Dropped 4. The Notice U/S 148 Is Bad In Law As The Approval Was Given By Prcit, Mechanically. Prcit-1 Has Given Earlier Approval For Previous Assessment Year 2019-20 & After Being Pointing Out The Flaws, The Assessing Officer Amey Madhav Baitule

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69