4.4 The second ground taken by appellant challenging the reassessment proceedings is that since the notice u/s 148 has been issued after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the satisfaction of JCIT is mandatory before the issuance of notice. As per appellant, the JCIT/Addl. CIT has merely approved the proposal of AO for issue of notice u/s 148, did not record his satisfaction, therefore, issuance of notice is invalid. I have gone through the issue raised by appellant. The statutory provisions of section 151(1) of the Act provide that the AO, below the rank of ACIT/DCIT, shall not issue notice u/s 148 unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. Thus, the unambiguous provisions of this section clearly mandate that Joint Commissioner has to get himself 'satisfied' with the reasons recorded by AO before issuing notice and such satisfaction has to be recorded in writing in clear terms in the light of material relied upon by the AO. However, in the case of appellant, Addl. CIT has "approved" the proposal of AO for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. He has not recorded his satisfaction towards the reasons recorded by AO. Thus, merely affixing "approved" in mechanical manner without verifying/examining the material relied upon by AO cannot be termed as sanction as required u/s 151 of the Act. This view is supported by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs CIT 258 ITR 317 wherein it is held that the power vested in the Commissioner (or Addl CIT in the case of appellant) to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. He is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of material relied upon by AO. Similarly, Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case ITO vs N.C. Cables Ltd. In the order dated 22.10.2015 has held the reopening bad in law on the ground that the Commissioner did not record his satisfaction as contemplated u/s 151 of the Act rather approved the proposal by stating ‘approved’ and putting his signature. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble ITAT In the case ITO vs M.B. Jewelers (P) Ltd. vide order dated 14.11.2014 wherein Addl. CIT has simply recorded that he has granted approval and has not recorded his satisfaction as required under the Law . In view of this, I hold that in the case of appellant also, issuance of notice u/s 151 of the Act is invalid for the reason that the Addl. CIT has not recorded his satisfaction as required under the law in the light of material relied upon by AO. He has simply affixed the words "approved" below the proposal of AO for issuance of the notice u/s 151 of the Act which is contrary to the
