ITAT Invalidates Section 148 Reassessment Proceedings Over Lack of Valid Section 151 Approval:

The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid if mandatory prior approval under Section 151 is not properly signed by the competent authority.
Unsigned Section 151 Approval Makes Reassessment Void: ITAT

ITAT Invalidates Section 148 Reassessment Proceedings Over Lack of Valid Section 151 Approval
The ITAT Rajkot, in the case of Jigesh Munvar for Assessment Year 2020-21, highlighted that the tax authorities are compelled to take valid prior approval from specified higher authorities before issuing a notice to reopen an assessment under Section 148, signed either manually or digitally by the competent authority.
In the present case, the assessee's case was reopened by the tax authorities under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, and reassessment was completed by making an addition amounting to Rs 51.52 lakh on the grounds of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
When the aggrieved assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], it also sustained the aforementioned decision of the tax authorities. Additionally, confirmed the application of Section 115BBE, charged interest amounting to Rs 15.32 lakh and Rs 24.19 lakh under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, respectively, imposed a charging fee of Rs 10,000 for default in filing return of income (ITR) under Section 234F and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC of the Act.
Challenging the same, the assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the ITAT Rajkot, raising the key ground of mandatory approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The provisions of the said section mandate tax authorities to obtain prior approval from specified higher authorities (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner/Joint Commissioner) before issuing a notice to reopen an assessment under Section 148. The assessee argued that the Section 151 approval was neither manually signed nor digitally signed by the competent authority, which is an obligatory requirement under the law.
To support this argument, the tribunal cited an earlier ruling of this court in the case of M/s Aditya Plastic, in ITA No. 185/Rjt/2024, for AY 2013-14, where the judges had held in favour of the assessee, holding that a valid approval is necessary before issuing a reassessment notice. When the tribunal examined the furnished documents, it endorsed the arguments served by the assessee. Since, in the present case, the basic requirement was not fulfilled, the tax authorities had no power to issue the Section 148 notice. Which ultimately makes the entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
In conclusion, the tribunal quashed the impugned assessment order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2629My Recent Articles
- Section 234E Late Fee Is Invalid for TDS Statements Filed Before June 2015, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Orders Fresh Adjudication in Rs 3 Lakh Unexplained Unsecured Loan Case After Condonation of 3558-Day DelayPremium
- ITAT Condones 393-Day Delay, Gives Lorry Owner Fresh Chance to Explain in Rs 1.18 Crore Unexplained Cash Deposit CasePremium
- JSW Cement Faces Rs 81.03 Crore GST Demand for Alleged Tax Short Payment, ITC Irregularities, and Tax Classification Issues
- Godavari Biorefineries Faces Rs 17.02 Crore Demand Over Non-Payment of GST on ENA Supplies to KSBCL
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts







