The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the  order passed under section 148A(d) as well as the notice issued under section 148. On writ  the assessee contended that the  notice had been issued in breach of the provisions of section 151 which provided for a sanction by the specified authority before issuance of notice. It was submitted that in the instant case, such sanction to issue the impugned notice was issued by the Principal Commissioner which itself was contrary to the provisions of section 151(ii), inasmuch as admittedly the impugned notice was issued after a period of more than three years having elapsed from that of the relevant assessment year 2016-17, hence, such sanction ought to have been issued by the Specified Authority as set out in section 151(ii) and not by an authority falling under clause (i) of the said provision. It was submitted that once such compliance itself was lacking, the impugned notice issued under section 148 would be rendered illegal, and on such count, would be required to be quashed and set aside. Court held that  on a plain reading of section 148A it is clear that the Assessing officer before issuing any notice under section 148 is required to follow the procedure as set out in clauses (a) to (d) of section 148A. One of the pre-conditions as ordained by clause (d) of section 148A is that an order under such provision can be passed by the Assessing Officer only with the approval of Specified Authority. Thus, necessarily when clause (d) of section 148A provides for prior approval of specified authority, it relates to the provisions of section 151 providing for ‘Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A. In the instant case, section 151 as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and section 148A as also introduced by Finance Act, 2021 have become applicable, as although the assessment year in question is 2016-17 in respect of which the assessment is sought to be reopened by issuance of notice under section 148, which is dated 30 July, 2022. Such amended provision would squarely become applicable the date of notice under section 148 itself being 30 July, 2022.  The record clearly indicates that the sanction in the present case was issued by the Principal Commissioner which can only be in respect of cases if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, as would fall under the provisions of clause (i) of section 151. As in the instant case the assessment year in question is 2016-17 and the impugned notice itself has been issued on 30 July, 2022, it is issued after a period more than 3 years having elapsed from the end of the said assessment year, hence, clause (ii) of section 151 was applicable, which required the sanction to be issued by either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General for issuance of notice under section 148.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that an appropriate sanction of the specified authority as per the provisions of section 151(ii) was not obtained and for such reason, certainly, the impugned notices would be rendered bad and illegal. The petition is allowed.  Accordingly the notice issued under section 148 is quashed and set aside, as also the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside..Followed Siemens Financial  Services (P) Ltd  v. Dy.CIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159/ 457 ITR 647 (Bom)(HC)  (AY. 2016-17)