Mechanical approval for reopening invalid where sanctioning authority failed to show independent application of mind.

Approval under section 151 for issuance of notice under section 148 was held invalid where the sanctioning authority gave only a bare endorsement that income had escaped assessment and that it was a fit case for reopening. The recording did not show independent consideration of the Assessing Officer's material or discernible satisfaction by the approving authority, so the jurisdictional safeguard was not met. As a result, the reassessment proceedings based on the reopening notice were unsustainable and were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the approval granted under section 151 for issuance of notice under section 148 was mechanical and without application of mind, thereby invalidating the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The approval recorded only a bare endorsement that, in view of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, income had escaped assessment and that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148. Such a mechanical concurrence was held to be insufficient because the sanctioning authority must independently consider the material and record discernible satisfaction before the reopening notice can validly issue. Since the approval did not reflect such independent application of mind, the jurisdictional safeguard under section 151 was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The approval under section 151 was invalid, the reopening under section 148 was unsustainable, and the reassessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---