Allowing the petition  the Court held that   the contention that the record had been carefully considered before granting approval under section 151 was an incorrect statement made by the Principal Chief Commissioner. The information annexed to the notice issued under section 148A(b) had stated the quantum of income that had escaped assessment more than the amount mentioned in the order passed under section 148A(d) without any explanation as to how the amount had changed or had been reduced. In the affidavit it was stated that in the notice the value of the transaction in question was taken gross and subsequently it was seen that there were duplicate entries which were corrected while passing the order under section 148A(d). The notice did not contain any duplicate entries. If there were duplicate entries, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to clarify in the order and also give details of what were those duplicate entries and should have come clean on the error made. If the Principal Chief Commissioner or the other officers had seen the records and had applied their mind those errors would not have crept in. This displayed non-application of mind by all those persons who had endorsed their approval for issuance of notice under section 148. Had the authorities read the record carefully, they would never have come to the conclusion that this was a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 and would have either told the Assessing Officer to correct the amounts or would have sent the papers back for reconsideration. They had substituted the form for substance, important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were treated lightly by the concerned officers. The order of approvals under section 151, having been granted mechanically and without application of mind in a most casual manner, were quashed and set aside. The order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequent notice issued under section 148 were also quashed and set aside.