The Sanction That Says Nothing

Three appeals, one bench, one day. A villager who never filed a return, assessed on a ₹30 lakh cash deposit. Another non-filer, assessed on ₹28.30 lakh for buying agricultural land. And a private limited company, assessed on ₹1.71 crore of alleged accommodation entries.

Different taxpayers, different allegations, amounts six times apart. All three reassessments quashed, and not one of them reached its merits. The defect was identical in each, and it was a single sentence long.

• Munni Devi v. ITO, ITA No. 488/Agr/2026, AY 2011-12
• Charan Singh v. ITO, ITA No. 252/Agr/2026, AY 2012-13
• Tulsi Infraheights Pvt Ltd v. DCIT, ITA No. 308/Agr/2026, AY 2012-13

All ITAT Agra, all 30 September 2026. That is the part worth pausing on. This is not one indulgence granted to a sympathetic appellant; it is a bench clearing its board of a defect the Department keeps repeating.

The sentence

The approval under section 151, as recorded by the Principal Commissioner on the proforma, read in full:

In view of the reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148.

That is the whole of it. No material identified, no issue engaged with, nothing to show what was weighed.

Section 151 exists as a check. A senior officer is required to be satisfied, on the reasons recorded, that it is a fit case. The purpose is to put a second mind between a taxpayer and a reopening. An endorsement that says only that the first mind was agreed with does not supply a second one.

"It is only administrative" does not answer it

The Department's argument was that approval under section 151 is an administrative act needing no detailed discussion.

The Tribunal did not accept that it followed. Administrative orders also carry reasons. It drew on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 — where the validity of an administrative order is challenged, the reasons must be in the order itself and cannot be supplemented afterwards by affidavit. Krishna Iyer J put it memorably:

Orders are not like old wine, becoming better as they grow older.

And Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, that insisting on reasons serves judicial accountability and transparency, whether the authority is administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial.

So the question is not whether the sanction was administrative. It is whether anything was recorded. Nothing was.

The genuinely interesting part: two High Courts, neither binding

This is the reasoning worth taking away, because it recurs far beyond section 151.

The assessee relied on CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd, 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP), where a mechanical recording of satisfaction by the sanctioning authority was held unsustainable. The SLP against it was dismissed.

The Department relied on PCIT v. Agroha Fincap Ltd, Delhi High Court, ITA 60/2024, decided 6 October 2025, where an endorsement of that kind was held to satisfy the statutory mandate. The SLP against that was dismissed too.

Two High Courts, opposite conclusions, and for a bench sitting at Agra neither is jurisdictional. Both SLPs dismissed summarily.

The Tribunal worked it through:

• A summary dismissal of an SLP declares no law under Article 141, and the doctrine of merger does not apply. The High Court order is not replaced by anything.
• So both decisions survive, independent and opposed.
• Two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are therefore open.
• CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd, 88 ITR 192 (SC): where that is so, the construction favouring the assessee is adopted.

The sanction was held invalid and the reassessment quashed.

The line of authority behind it

Worth knowing, because the point is not confined to one bench:

• PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd, 391 ITR 11 (Del) — a proforma marked only "approved" is mechanical. The authority need not write at length, but satisfaction has to be recorded, "in the briefest possible manner" if need be.
• SBC Minerals Pvt Ltd v. ACIT, 475 ITR 360 (Del) — mechanical approval vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction.
• Vodafone India Ltd v. DCIT, 464 ITR 385 (Bom).
• Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd v. ACIT, 473 ITR 205 (Bom) — the power to sanction is coupled with a duty to exercise it reasonably; absence of valid reasons is arbitrariness.

Get the proforma

This is the practical step, and most replies never take it.

In SABH Infrastructure Ltd v. ACIT the Delhi High Court directed that when the reasons for reopening are communicated, the copy of the standard form used by the Assessing Officer to obtain the approval should itself be provided, carrying the superior officer's comment, name, designation and date. Merely stating the reasons in a letter is to be avoided.

So:

• Ask for the approval proforma, not just the reasons. They are different documents and the defect lives in the second one.
• Read the endorsement column. If it records agreement and nothing else, the ground is there.
• Check who signed and whether that was the right authority for the year and the time elapsed.
• Take it first. In Munni Devi the point was pressed at the threshold as a preliminary legal issue, and the Tribunal took it first because it goes to the root. Everything else was left open and never needed deciding.
• Expect the administrative argument and have Mohinder Singh Gill ready for it.

The related question of what the notice itself must give the assessee before any of this arises is in Six Days Is Not Seven, and what a Commissioner (Appeals) may do with a defective reassessment is in Section 144B Is Not Section 144.

This note is general information drawn from reported decisions, not advice on your matter. The conflict described is live, and which construction a bench adopts may depend on the High Court to which it is subordinate.