Allowing the petition the Court held that  assessment was made by taking recourse to section 143(2) and 143(3), it could not be open to ITO to project that income had escaped assessment.  Further the Assessing Officer had applied his mind on defence taken by assessee and accepted deduction claimed to be admissible, therefore, it could be said that proceeding under section 148 to reopen assessment was actuated merely by a change of opinion and, hence  notice was to be set aside. As regards  time limit for notice, the  ITO issued a notice dated 1-1-2019, under provision of section 149(1)(b) as amended by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1-7-2012, which was in force when notice dated 1-9-2019 was issued by ITO, period of limitation to issue notice under section 148 would be four years, but not more than six years. Therefore, notice dated 1-1-2019 could not be said to be issued after expiry of prescribed period of limitation and accordingly, assessee’s challenge to notice as barred by limitation was to be dismissed.  As regards sanction  ITO had obtained satisfaction of Additional Commissioner. In view of prescription of section 151(1), by necessary implication, ‘Addl. Commissioner’ would not be same as ‘Pr. Chief Commissioner’ or ‘Chief Commissioner’ or ‘Pr. Commissioner’ or ‘Commissioner’. Therefore, since ITO, had obtained satisfaction of Additional Commissioner, an authority who is not covered by provision of section 151(1), as it stood on 1-1-2019, proceeding initiated against assessee-company by issuance of notice under section 148 was held to be not in accordance with law.   (AY. 2014-15)