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

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Pinkiben Riddheshkumar Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, though the Revenue succeeds on legal grounds, however, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue on factual merits

ITA 976/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.976/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit Pinkiben Riddheshkumar Centrla Circle 1(1), बनाम/ Bhandari, 201 Panchshil Residency Ahmedabad - 380009 Nr Panchshil Bust Stand, V/S. Usmanpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aempb8417L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Upadhyay, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24 /06/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24.02.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19. 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Contested The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 44,19,060 /- Which Was Made By The Assessing Officer, (For Short, “The Ao”) U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 148Section 148ASection 68

Rajesh Gupta, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 47(1), New Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed and the impugned reassessment proceedings and consequent assessment are quashed

ITA 280/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklarajesh Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 47(1) 3968-C, First Floor, Drum Shape Building, Naya Bazar, I.P. Estate Building, Delhi – 110006 New Delhi – 110002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapg7542H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manu Gawri, Ca Sh. Madhav Gawri, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2026 O R D E R Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 Of The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Din & Order No: Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1084093412(1) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24.05.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department For Ay: 2017-18. P A G E | 2 Rajesh Gupta (Ay: 2017-18) 2. On Hearing Both Sides We Find That On Account Of Alleged Bogus Sales Addition Was Made Which Has Been Sustained By Ld. Cit(A) But The Issue Canvassed Before Us Is That The Requisite Sanction Of The Prescribed Specified Authority U/S 148A(D) R.W.S 148 Has Not Been Taken & In This Regard, We Find Admittedly Approval U/S 151 Of The Act Has Been Taken From Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Delhi. The Assessment Year Involved Is 2017-18 & In The Light Of Aforesaid Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Case Of Ashish Aggarwal Scc Online Sc 543 For The Relevant Assessment Year The Prescribed Authority To Give Approval Was Pr. Cit. Ld. Dr Could Not Disputed Aforesaid Facts & Proposition Of Law Cited, Thus, We Are Inclined To Sustain Corresponding Ground. The Appeal Of The Assesse Is Allowed & The Impugned Reassessment Proceedings & Consequent Assessment Are Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Gawri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr
Section 147Section 148ASection 151

Satya Prakash Soni, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/LKW/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jun 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Satya Prakash Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer B-17, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Anqps7187P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 5.12.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2013-14 On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Entire Assessment Proceedings Commencing With Recording Of Reason To Believe & Concluding With Passing Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2022 Are Void Ab Initio As The Very Formation Of The Assessment Stands Vitiated On Account Of Jurisdictional Infirmity & Breach Of Mandatory Procedure & Consequently, The Said Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Even Though The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, In Pursuance Of Which The Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Were Initiated, Having Been Issued After Expiry Of Six Years, Was Barred By Limitation. 3. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Assessment Order By Holding The Same As Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction Even Though Reason To Believe Was Recorded On Incorrect Facts.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 155Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)