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

Bang Overseas Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 8930/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Bang Overseas Limited Dcit, Circle 6(1)(2) Unit No. 405, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kewal Industrial Estate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. S B Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aabcb 2777 M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Himandhu Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 16.10.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 2 & Submitted That The Appeal Can Be Decided On The Preliminary Issue Raised In The Said Ground. Ground No. 2 Reads As Under: 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Consider That Permission Obtained Under Section 151 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Not In Accordance With The Law, As The Same Was Given By Pcit In Mechanical Manner Without Mentioning The Date Of Permission & Without Jurisdiction & Thus The Resultant Proceedings Under Section 148 Are Also Bad In Law & Require To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Himandhu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi (CIT DR)
Section 148Section 151

Jasbir Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-57(4), Delhi

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

ITA 4929/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jasbir Singh Vs Ito C/O-9/995, Gandhi Nagar, Ward-57(4) Gandhi Nagar S.O. (East Delhi), Delhi Delhi-110031. Pan-Abmps0071N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Gunjan Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.07.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-19/10474/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 18.02.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,59,845/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Has Two Bank Accounts In Which He Had Made Cash Deposits Of Inr 9,11,38,235/- In Axis Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi & Inr 2,41,03,076/- In Indusind Bank, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi & Since The Income Declared By The Assessee Was Not Commensurate With The Cash Deposited In The Bank Account, The Case Of The Assessee Was Re- Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons & Approval From The Competent Authorities. Thereafter, The Ao Had Made The Addition Of Inr 11,52,41,311/- Being Cash Deposits As Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292BSection 68