The Assessee was subjected to the reopening under section 147 of the Act and a notice dated 30.03.2017 was issued under section 148 of the Act based on some information received from the Investigation Wing. The AO, based on the said information, alleged that the Assessee indulged in accommodation entries of bogus purchases. The AO finalised the assessment by making the additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition from 100% to 5%. Being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the Assessee filed the appeals to the ITAT. Before ITAT, the Assessee raised legal issue challenging the notice under section 148 of the Act. It was contended before the ITAT that, in the present case, the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued without seeking proper approval and satisfaction as per section 151 of the Act. The ITAT after considering the arguments of the Assessee, observed that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax wrote a letter to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on 27.03.2017 stating that a search and seizure action has conducted on 03.10.2013 in the group of Shri Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Jain etc, the Assessee is one of the beneficiary of this group, therefore necessary sanction under section 151(1) of the Act may be given. However, the form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147 was prepared on 23.03.2017 for obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of the Income-Tax. The approval was granted merely mentioning ‘yes. I am satisfied’. The ITAT held that as per section 151 of the Act, the appropriate authority for granting approval was the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and not the Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, there is no application of mind before granting approval. The ITAT, therefore, quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding the notice under section 148 bad in law. Thus, the Appeal of the Assessee was allowed. [AY. 2010-11, 2011-12]