IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 #8 
         ITA 1569/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                          ..... Appellant 
 Through       Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. 
 versus 
 . 
 SHARAT ANAND                                              ..... 
 Respondent 
 Through       Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        08.10.2010 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the revenue 
 and Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee ? respondent.  In this 
 appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the number of 
 questions have been formulated by the revenue.  Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned 
 counsel for the revenue only pressed question No.2.4 which is as follows: 
 ?2.4       Whether learned ITAT erred in not considering that inspite of 
 Assessing Officer recording in its order that ?notice under Section 148 dated 
 6th February, 2001 was served after recording reasons? as far back on 27.03.2002 
 ought not to have entertained additional ground as to the challenge to the 
 notice under Section 148 of the Act?? 
 . 
 To appreciate whether the aforesaid question really raises a substantial 
 ITA 1569/2010                                                             Page 1 
 of 3 
 question of law, the facts in brief are requisite to be stated.  It is worth 
 noting that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. 
 The stand of the assessee on many a ground was rejected.  Being grieved by the 
 order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the 
 tribunal.  A pure question of law was raised before the tribunal relating to the 
 factum that prior to issue of notice the satisfaction was not recorded.  The 
 tribunal referred to the language employed in Section 148(2) of the Act and also 
 referred to the order passed by the Assessing Officer and came to hold as 
 follows: 
 ?6.       ?A copy of the reasons recorded has been placed before us, at page 4 
 of the assessee?s paper book.  The date mentioned therein is ?6.12.2001?.  The 
 notice issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act is dated 6.2.2001. 
 . 
 7.       Section 148(2) of the Act reads as follows: 
 ?148(2) ? The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this 
 section, record his reasons for doing so.? 
 . 
 Therefore, it is the express provision of the Act, enshrined in Section 148(2) 
 thereof, that the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings need must be 
 recorded prior to the issuance of any notice u/s 148.  In the present case, 
 clearly, this provision has not been complied with.  The notice u/s 148 of the 
 Act was thus issued to the assessee without recording any reasons.  The 
 recording of reasons is a pre-requisite for initiating sine qua non is missing 
 in the present case.  Once there is so, the notice u/s 148 itself becomes 
 invalid and we hold  so.  Proceedings   pursuant   to   an  invalid  notice  are 
 no 
 ITA 1569/2010                                                             Page 2 
 of 3 
 proceedings in the eye of law and the assessment framed thereafter is no 
 assessment of law.  Hence, this grievance of the assessee is accepted and the 
 notice dated 6.2.2001 issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act is quashed.  As 
 a necessary corollary, assessment made in pursuance thereof is also held to be 
 invalid.? 
 . 
 In view of the aforesaid analysis made by the tribunal, we do not 
 perceive any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed 
 without any order as to costs. 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 . 
 . 
 OCTOBER 08, 2010 
 dk 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 1569/2010                                                             Page 3 
 of 3 
 .