Invalid Income Tax Reassessment Sanction u/ s.151 of: Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue SLP [Read Judgement]
The Court held that the matter is squarely covered by its earlier decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
![Invalid Income Tax Reassessment Sanction u/ s.151 of: Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue SLP [Read Judgement]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/14/2119751-supreme-court-dismisses-revenue-slp-taxscan.webp "Invalid Income Tax Reassessment Sanction u/ s.151 of: Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue SLP [Read Judgement]")
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court’s order quashing reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on the ground of invalid sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case pertains to A.Y. 2017-18, wherein reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee,...
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court’s order quashing reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on the ground of invalid sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The case pertains to A.Y. 2017-18, wherein reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, Rajendra Bothmal Singhvi. The assessee challenged the validity of the notice and subsequent proceedings before the Bombay High Court. One of the principal grounds raised was that the sanction for issuance of the reassessment notice had been obtained under an incorrect provision of Section151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Also Read:Import Declared as Grey Fabric Found to Be Corduroy: Madras HC Upholds Confiscation and Penalties under Customs Act, But Relieves Non‑Importing Entity [Read Order]
The assessee submitted that the issue of improper sanction was no longer res integra, and for the relevant A.Y., the sanction for reopening should have been granted under Section 151(ii) of the Act and not under Section 151(i).
The Bombay High Court held that the ratio laid down in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2023) squarely applied to the case of the petitioner. The Court observed that once the sanction itself was invalid, the reassessment notice issued pursuant thereto could not survive.
Also Read:No Profit in Intra-Group Sales, Not Liable for Commission Income: ITAT Rules in Avance Technologies Appeal [Read Order]
The High Court further clarified that any assessment order passed subsequently, relying on such invalid sanction, would also stand vitiated. Accordingly, all notices and orders impugned in the writ petition, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was disposed of, while reserving liberty to the parties to raise other grounds in appropriate proceedings.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Revenue filed a SLP before the Supreme Court. After condoning the delay, the Supreme Court noted that the issue raised was squarely covered by its judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024).
In view of the settled legal position, the Supreme Court disposed of the Revenue’s petition. The Court clarified that the assessee would be governed by the reasons discussed in Rajeev Bansal, and that the assessing officers would dispose of objections in accordance with the law laid down therein.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
