IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.540 of 2004 7 20.1.2011 1. Commissioner of Income-tax 1, Patna 2. Income-tax Officer, Ward-(1), Patna …. Appellants VERSUS Rakesh Prasad Singh, S/o Late Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, Shashi Niketan, Budh Marg, Patna …. Respondent ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. The appeals in question relate to assessment year 1983-84 which were decided in favour of assessee by a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna encompassing some other appeals relating to different assessment years. The learned Tribunal accepted the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the assessee that initiation of proceedings under Section 147/ 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is without jurisdiction because notice under Section 147/ 148 of the Act was issued by an officer below the rank of JCIT after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant - 2 - assessment year without there being satisfaction of the JCIT as required under the provisions of Section 151 (1) and (2) of the Act. By way of substantial question of law requiring consideration in this appeal, it has been submitted that when action under Section 147 is initiated in pursuance of provisions of Section 150 of the Act, provisions of Section 151 are not applicable and it is not necessary to have approval from JCIT before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. A mere perusal of Section 151 makes it abundantly clear that provision for issuing notice has been made dependent upon sanction for issue of such notice under provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The provision is mandatory and clear that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 by assessing officer who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner unless Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such assessing officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. That view has been correctly taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, no - 3 - substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J.)