Parulben Jerambhai Parsana Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Unsigned Approval Under Section 151 Invalidates Reassessment Proceedings
The controversy
The Rajkot Tribunal allowed two assessees’ appeals after finding that the approvals under section 151 were neither digitally nor manually signed.
The Tribunal held that reassessments founded on such defective approvals could not stand. Following its coordinate Bench decision in Aditya Plastics, it accepted the jurisdictional challenge without deciding the substantive disputes concerning political donations, charitable donations, alleged commission and unexplained cash deposits.
Two appeals with a common jurisdictional defect
Both appeals concerned AY 2019-20 and arose from reassessment orders under section 147, followed by separate appellate orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC.
In Parulben Jerambhai Parsana’s case, the assessee challenged disallowance of ₹80,000 under section 80GGC, relating to a donation to Apna Desh Party, and ₹26,949 under section 80G, relating to a donation to Kalpatru Education & Charitable Trust.
In Pritiben Pravinchandra Palan’s case, the disputed amounts included ₹1,00,000 under section 80GGC for a donation to Apna Desh Party and ₹70,000 under section 80G for a donation to the same charitable trust.
She also challenged an addition of ₹8,500, made on the allegation that the donations of ₹1,70,000 had been arranged by paying commission at 5%, and an addition of ₹12,81,862 under section 69A concerning cash deposits.
Although the merits differed, both assessees raised the same preliminary objection: the statutory sanction supporting the reopening was unsigned.
Additional legal grounds admitted
The assessees raised additional legal grounds challenging the reopening. Their representative submitted that the section 151 approvals were neither signed digitally nor manually and that the resulting reassessments should therefore be quashed.
The Revenue opposed admission, arguing that these legal grounds could not be raised at that stage.
The Tribunal rejected that objection. It found that the grounds went to the root of the assessments, all relevant facts were already on record before the lower authorities, and no further factual enquiry was necessary.
Relying on National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 382 (SC), it admitted the additional grounds and considered them first.
This aspect is significant: the Tribunal did not decline examination merely because the jurisdictional argument was presented through an additional ground. The existing record enabled it to decide the issue.
The approvals lacked both forms of signature
The Tribunal reproduced the section 151 approvals in both cases and examined them.
It expressly recorded that neither approval bore a digital signature nor a manual signature. Consequently, the reassessment orders based on those approvals were liable to be quashed.
The Revenue relied on the Assessing Officer’s findings, but the Tribunal followed the earlier Rajkot Bench decision dealing with the same defect.
The operative basis was therefore the absence of an authenticated approval, rather than an adjudication of whether the donations or cash deposits had been satisfactorily explained.
Aditya Plastics followed
The Tribunal relied on M/s. Aditya Plastics, ITA Nos. 185 & 186/RJT/2024, order dated 3 September 2025.
In that case, the approval attributed to the Principal Commissioner was found to be without signature. The quoted decision also recorded absence of a DIN. However, in the present appeals, the Tribunal’s express finding and reasoning centred on the approvals being neither manually nor digitally signed.
Aditya Plastics had, in turn, relied on Vikas Gupta, reported at (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad High Court).
The extract from Vikas Gupta concerned a related but distinct defect: the prescribed authority’s satisfaction was digitally signed after the section 148 notice had already been issued. The High Court held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction at the time of issuing the notice because valid statutory satisfaction did not then exist.
Thus, the cited authorities emphasised the necessity of a valid sanction supporting the assumption of reopening jurisdiction.
The ruling
Finding the issue covered by Aditya Plastics, with no relevant change in facts or law, the Tribunal allowed both appeals on the unsigned-approval ground.
The decision provides no finding on the genuineness of the political or charitable donations, the alleged commission, or the source of the cash deposits. Those substantive claims were not the basis of relief.
Author’s comments
Statutory approval is a jurisdictional safeguard, and the record must establish that the prescribed authority actually granted it. An unsigned document cannot simply be treated as sufficient sanction because it appears in the assessment records.
The decision also illustrates the value of examining the approval itself rather than relying only on a statement in the assessment order that approval was obtained.
The distinctions between the authorities should nevertheless be preserved. Unsigned approval was the defect in these appeals; approval authenticated after issuance of the notice was the defect discussed in Vikas Gupta. Absence of DIN was additionally mentioned in Aditya Plastics, but was not independently identified as the deciding defect here.
For practitioners, the approval document and its authentication deserve scrutiny alongside the notice and recorded reasons.
The Department’s additions never reached a merits determination because the sanction supporting the reassessments failed first.
Cases Discussed:
- National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 382 (SC) — Relied upon for admission of additional legal grounds involving facts already on record.
- M/s. Aditya Plastics, ITA Nos. 185 & 186/RJT/2024, ITAT Rajkot, 03.09.2025 — Coordinate Bench decision followed on defective section 151 approval.
- Vikas Gupta v. Union of India, (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad High Court) — Cited in Aditya Plastics concerning approval authenticated after issuance of the reassessment notice.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
Captioned two appeals filed by the different assessees, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, are directed against the separate orders under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act.
2. Since the issue involved in these two appeals are identical and similar, therefore, these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.799/RJT/2025, are as follows:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act of Rs.80,000/-being donation given to the Apna Desh Party. The disallowance may kindly be deleted.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act of Rs.26,949/- being donation given to the Kalpatru Education & Charitable Trust. The disallowance may kindly be deleted”.
4. The assessee has also raised additional/legal grounds, in ITA No.799/RJT/2025, which is reproduced below :
“The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in dismissing ground of appeal relating to reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act.”
5. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No.800/RJT/2025, are as follows:
1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80GGC of the Act of Rs.1,00,000/-being donation given to the Apna Desh Party. The disallowance may kindly be deleted.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act of Rs.70,000/- being donation given to the Kalpatru Education & Charitable Trust. The disallowance may kindly be deleted.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,500/- made by alleging that appellant arranged donations of Rs.1,70,000/- by paying commission @5%. The addition may kindly be deleted.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,81,862/- by treating cash deposits made in bank account as unexplained cash deposits. The addition made u/s 69A of the Act may kindly be deleted.
6. The assessee has also raised additional/legal grounds, in ITA No.800/RJT/2025,which is reproduced below :
“The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in dismissing ground of appeal relating to reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act.”
7. In both these appeals, i.e. in ITA No.799/RJT/2025, and in ITA No.800/RJT/2025, these two different assessees, had raised similar and identical additional/legal ground. For both the appeals, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar and identical additional ground raised by these assessees, go to the root of the matter, as in these assessees’ case, the approval under section 151 of the Act is neither signed digitally nor manually therefore based on the defective approval, the assessment order should be quashed and for that these two assessees have raised the above additional legal ground. Learned Counsel stated that all facts relating to these legal grounds are already on record, therefore such additional/legal grounds should be admitted in the interest of justice, in both appeals, that is, in ITA No.799/Rjt/2025 and ITA No.800/Rjt/2025.
8. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for these additional grounds and stated that at this stage these assessees cannot raise the legal grounds.
9. I have heard, on this preliminary issue and noted that additional grounds raised by these assessees go to the root of the matter and all the facts relating to the above additional grounds are on record before the Lower Authorities. I note that it is purely a legal issue and all facts are already on record which goes to the root of the matter and no further inquiry is required for deciding the same as all facts are already on record. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd., vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 382 (SC), I admit these additional grounds raised by both assessees and proceed to adjudicate first.
10. Learned Counsel for the assessee argued in respect of the above additional lagal ground that approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is neither signed digitally nor manually, therefore reassessment order framed based on the defective approval should be quashed and for that Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot in the case of Aditya Plastics ITA No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024.
11. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer.
12. I have heard, both the parties and perused the material available on record. I note that approval given under section 151 of the Act in the assessee’s case, in Parulben, in ITA No.799/RJT/2025, is reproduced below:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
PCIT, Rajkot-1
Approval u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961
| PAN | Assessment Year | Date | DIN |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIZPP0758R | 2019-20 | 18/04/2023 | ITBA/AST/S/148/2023-24/1052148509(1) |
—
| 1. | Name of the assessee | PARULBEN JERAMBHAI PARSANA |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Address and e-mail of the assessee | TIRUPATI -7, MANGHAM, BH. MALHAR HALL, NR. BRAM SAMAJ, AT-RAJKOT, RAJKOT / [email protected] |
| 3. | PAN | AIZPP0758R |
| 4. | Status | Individual |
| 5. | Circle/Ward/Range/CIT Charge | ITO WD 2(2)(3), RKT / JCIT RANGE 2(1), RAJKOT / PCIT, Rajkot-1 |
| 6. | Assessment Year | 2019-20 |
| 7. | The quantum of income which has escaped assessment | 80000 |
| 8. | Approval needed for | Order u/s 148A(d) required for issuance of notice u/s 148 |
| 9. | Time limit for current proceedings covered under | u/s 148(1)(b) – for more than 3 years but not more than 10 years |
| 10. | Limitation date for issuance of notice u/s 148 | 30/04/2023 |
| 11. | Whether the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) contains the details of the information, as per explanation-1 of Section 148 | Yes |
| 12. | (a) Enquiry conducted (if any), u/s 148A(a) | No |
| (b) Whether the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) contains the details of result of enquiry conducted u/s 148A(a) | No | |
| 13. | Date of issue of show cause notice to assessee u/s 148A(b) | 30-MAR-23 |
| 14. | Date by which assessee was required to submit reply to show cause notice u/s 148A(b) or the final extended date | 14-APR-23 |
| 15. | Whether any reply received from assessee u/s 148A(b)? | Yes / 14-APR-23 |
| 16. | Whether personal hearing requested by assessee | No |
| 17. | Whether the provision of Sec. 150(1) are applicable | No |
| 18. | Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment | Refer Order u/s 148A(d) for details |
| 19. | Recommendations of the Additional/Joint CIT | Remarks: After careful perusal of materials available on records including information received through insight portal and draft order u/s 148A(d) submitted by the AO, I am satisfied that it is a fit case of issue of notice u/s. 148. Submitted for kind perusal and approval. Name: SHYAM SUNDER RATHI Designation: JCIT RANGE 2(1), RAJKOT Date: 17/04/2023 |
| 20. | Recommendations of the CIT/PCIT (where CCIT/PCCIT is the specified authority) | Remarks: N/A Name: N/A Designation: N/A Date: |
| 21. | Recommendations of the CCIT (where PCCIT is the specified authority) | Remarks: N/A Name: N/A Designation: N/A Date: |
| 22. | Reasons for according approval rejection by the specified authority to order u/s 148A(d) AND/OR issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? | Remarks: I have perused the content of draft order u/s. 148A(d) of IT Act submitted by the AO through Range head and I am satisfied that it is a fit case to issue a Notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act. As three years have not elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year. I, as the specified authority u/s. 151 of the IT Act hereby approve the proposal of order u/s. 148A(d) of IT Act. Name: RITA KUMARI DOKANIA Designation: PCIT, Rajkot-1 Date: 18/04/2023 |
13. Approval given by the Income Tax Authority under section 151 of the Act in the case of Pritiben, in ITA No.800/Rjt/2025, is as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
PCIT, Rajkot-1
Approval u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961
| PAN: AGBPP3270C |
Assessment Year: 2019-20 |
Date: 18/04/2023 |
DIN: ITBA/AST/S/118/2023-24/1052155732(1) |
—
| 1. | Name of the assessee | PRITIBEN PRAVINCHANDRA PALAN |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Address and e-mail of the assessee | BLOCK NO. 109, PUSKARDHAM SOCIETY, UNIVERSITY ROAD, RAJKOT, RAJKOT /[email protected] |
| 3. | PAN | AGBPP3270C |
| 4. | Status | Individual |
| 5. | Circle/Ward/Range/CIT Charge | ITO WD 2(2)(3), RKT / JCIT RANGE 2(1), RAJKOT / PCIT, Rajkot-1 |
| 6. | Assessment year | 2019-20 |
| 7. | The quantum of income which has escaped assessment | 100000 |
| 8. | Approval needed for | Order u/s 148A(d) required for issuance of notice u/s 148 |
| 9. | Time limit for current proceedings covered under | u/s 149(1)(b) – for more than 3 years but not more than 10 years |
| 10. | Limitation date for issuance of notice u/s 148 | 30/04/2023 |
| 11. | Whether the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) contains the details of the information, as per explanation-1 of Section 148 | Yes |
| 12. | (a) Enquiry conducted (if any), u/s 148A(a) (b) Whether the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) contains the details of results of enquiry conducted 148A(a). |
No No |
| 13. | Date of issue of show cause notice to assessee u/s 148A(b) | 30-MAR-23 |
| 14. | Date by which assessee was required to submit reply to show cause notice u/s 148A(b) or the final extended date | 14-APR-23 |
| 15. | Whether any reply received from assessee u/s 148A(b)? | Yes / 13-APR-23 |
| 16. | Whether personal hearing requested by assessee | No |
| 17. | Whether the provision of Sec. 150(1) are applicable. | No |
| 18. | Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment | Refer Order u/s 148A(d) for details |
| 19. | Recommendations of the Additional/Joint CIT | Remarks: After perusal of materials available on records including information received through insight portal and draft order u/s 148A(d) submitted by the AO, I am satisfied that it is a fit case of issue of notice u/s. 148. Submitted for kind perusal and approval. Name: SHYAM SUNDER RATHI Designation: JCIT RANGE 2(1), RAJKOT Date: 18/04/2023 |
| 20. | Recommendations of the CIT/PCIT (where CCIT/PCCIT is the specified authority) | Remarks: N/A Name: N/A Designation: N/A Date: |
| 21. | Recommendations of the CCIT (where PCCIT is the specified authority) | Remarks: N/A Name: N/A Designation: N/A Date: |
| 22. | Reasons for according approval/ rejection by the specified authority to order u/s 148A(d) AND/OR issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? | Remarks: I have perused the content of draft order u/s. 148A(d) of IT Act submitted by the AO through Range head and I am satisfied that it is a fit case to issue a Notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act. As three years have not elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year. I, as the specified authority u/s. 151 of the IT Act hereby approve the proposal of order u/s. 148A(d) of IT Act. Name: RITA KUMARI DOKANIA Designation: PCIT, Rajkot-1 Date: 18/04/2023 |
14. I have gone through the above both approvals under section 151 of the Act and noted that the approval under section 151 of the Act is neither signed digitally nor manually, therefore reassessment order framed by the Assessing Officer, based on the defective approval, under section 151 of the Act, should be quashed. For that I relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot Bench in the case of M/s. Aditya Plastics ITA No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024, order dated 03.09.2025, wherein it was held as follows:
8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record. We note that the approval of the PCIT is without any signature of the Ld.PCIT and without generating any DIN number which is reproduced below:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
PCIT 3, RAJKOT
Approval u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961
| PAN: AAJFA4558N |
AY: 2013-14 |
Dated: 20/03/2020 |
DIN & Document No.: ITBA/AST/S/118/2019-20/1026810985(1) |
| Name and Address of Assessee | ADITYA PLASTIC |
| Approving Authority | PCIT/CIT |
| Category | Assessment |
| Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh | Yes |
| Income Escaping Assessment (Rs.) | 22,35,842 |
Proposal Details
| Name of Officer | KAMLESH KESHAVLAL PANDYA |
| Designation | ITO WD 3(1)(2), RKT |
| Date of Proposal | 18/03/2020 |
| Reason(s) to Believe | As per Annexure |
Recommendation Details
| Name | SUHAS JANARDAN MISTRY |
|---|---|
| Designation | JCIT RANGE 3(1), RAJKOT |
| Recommended (Yes/No) | Yes |
| Recommendation Date | 19/03/2020 |
| Recommendation Remarks | On examination of the reasons recorded u/s 147, the case is fit for issue of notice u/s 148. |
Approval Details
| Name | NIRAJ KUMAR |
|---|---|
| Designation | PCIT 3, RAJKOT |
| Approval Status | Approved |
| Date of Approval | 20/03/2020 |
| Remarks of approving authority | On the basis of information in possession of the AO, further verification done by the AO, it has been, prima facie, found that there is a case of escapement of tax and I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. |
8.1. Therefore, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has stated that the approval u/s.151 of the Act dated 30/03/2020 is not signed by the Ld.PCIT and, hence, it is not considered as a valid approval/satisfaction and, thus, the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on the basis of said approval is bad in law and without jurisdiction. For that, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vikas Gupta reported at (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad HC). The relevant part of judgement is reproduced:
13. Thus, as per provision of section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an assessing officer gets jurisdiction to issue notice to an assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961 after Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied on the reason recorded by the assessing officer that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. The date and time of the approval granted digitally under section 151 of the Act and the date and time of the notice under section 148 of the Act, shows that the satisfaction was recorded by the PCTT digitally after the notice under section 148 was digitally signed.
29. In the present set of facts there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the by the Prescribed Authority under section 151 of the Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessees under section 148 of the Act, 1961. At the time when the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority ie. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction. The questions no. (a) and (b) are answered accordingly.
8.2. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order framed by the AO needs to be quashed as there was no approval u/s.151 of the Act for initiating the re-assessment proceedings by the Ld.PCIT, therefore, on this count the assessment order framed by the AO should be quashed.
15. Therefore, I note that since the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in the case of M/s. Aditya Plastics (supra) and there is no change in the facts and law. Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, I allow these two appeals of the assessees.
16. In the result, both appeals filed by the different assessees in ITA No.799/Rjt/2025 and ITA No.800/Rjt/2025, are allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open Court Today on 12/10/2026.
