Delhi ITAT on Invalid Reassessment Where Both JCIT and PCIT Record Independent Section 151 Satisfaction
1. Background of the Dispute
The Delhi Bench of the ITAT, in Dil Raj Kaur Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) for Assessment Year 2012-13, examined the validity of a reassessment initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, where sanction under Section 151 was recorded by both the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
The appeal arose from an order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), acting as CIT(A), which had affirmed the reassessment order dated 06.12.2016 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 by the ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi.
While multiple legal and factual grounds were raised, the Tribunal decided the matter solely on Ground No. 12, which challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 due to alleged invalid sanction under Section 151. Once this ground was accepted, the Bench did not go into the other issues and left them open.
The operative order was pronounced on 29 September 2026.
2. Central Issue: Validity of Dual Approval Under Section 151
2.1 Statutory Framework
Section 151 prescribes who must grant sanction and in what circumstances for issue of notice under Section 148. The identity of the approving authority and the form of satisfaction is a jurisdictional requirement, not a mere procedural irregularity.
Broadly, depending on the time elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and the rank of the Assessing Officer, the law mandates that satisfaction must be recorded by a particular designated authority (for example, JCIT, Additional CIT, or PCIT/CIT).
The consistent judicial approach has been that:
- If the statute requires satisfaction of a particular authority,
- That satisfaction cannot be replaced or altered by satisfaction of another officer, even if superior in rank.
2.2 Facts Noted From the Approval Proforma
In Dil Raj Kaur Vs ITO, the ITAT examined the standard approval proforma used by the Assessing Officer for obtaining sanction under Section 151. The Tribunal recorded the following key features:
- The JCIT, Range-34, New Delhi, explicitly recorded that he was satisfied that it was a fit case for reopening.
- The language used by the JCIT clearly reflected his own substantive satisfaction, not merely an endorsement forwarding the proposal to the PCIT.
- Subsequently, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-12 also recorded his independent approval on the same proforma.
- Both approvals bore the same date – 26.03.2019.
Thus, instead of a single authority granting sanction in the manner envisaged by Section 151, the record showed two separate authorities both expressing satisfaction on the same proposal.
The narrow question before the Tribunal was:
Whether reassessment proceedings are valid where both the JCIT and the PCIT have recorded independent satisfaction under
Section 151in the same case.
The Delhi ITAT answered this against the Revenue.
3. Tribunal’s Reasoning: Why Dual Sanction Is Defective
3.1 Reliance on Savita Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)
The Delhi Bench followed the coordinate Bench decision of ITAT Agra in Savita Gupta Vs. ITO, ITA No. 327/AGR/2024, order dated 24.03.2026.
In that case, the Agra Bench considered a similar approval proforma where:
- The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Etah recorded satisfaction on 19.03.2019; and
- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh recorded satisfaction on 20.03.2019;
- Both authorities, therefore, appeared to have granted approval under
Section 151in a cumulative or superfluous manner.
The Agra ITAT held that when Section 151 mandates sanction by a particular authority, obtaining approval from two different authorities simultaneously or sequentially, each purporting to exercise sanction, is not in consonance with the statutory requirements and vitiates the reassessment.
The Delhi Bench, in Dil Raj Kaur, applied this ratio to the facts before it, as the pattern of dual sanction was materially similar.