JUDGMENT

M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 25th March, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 25th March, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2004-05.

2. Revenue urges the following question of law, for our consideration:

" Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in quashing the order made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 holding that the same is out of jurisdiction without appreciating the fact that the sanction of the CIT was based on the satisfaction/report of the Addl. CIT and as such the requirement of section 151(2) of the IT Act which calls for the sanction of the Addl. CIT, is duly fulfilled?"

3. Respondent is engaged in the business of trading in pharmaceutical products. On 25th March, 2011, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2004-05. Respondent challenged the issuance of the reopening notice dated 25th March, 2011 on the ground that, permission/sanction for issuing of the notice had to be obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 (2) of the Act while the sanction in this case has been obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, in breach of the Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, without jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer did not accept the above submission of the Respondent and proceeded to pass a reassessment order dated 16th December, 2011 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.

4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 16th December, 2011, the Respondent filed an Appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By order dated 28th December, 2013, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. This, by holding that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. appropriate authority has applied his mind and was satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. It held that mere obtaining the approval from a higher authority i.e. CIT(A) will not vitiate the reopening proceedings.

5. This led to the Respondent filing a further appeal from the order dated 28th December, 2013 to the Tribunal. This, appeal by the Respondent Assessee''s was allowed by the impugned order dated 25th March, 2011. This, by following the decision of this Court in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 443 to hold that, the approval/permission to issue the notice dated 25th March, 2011 had not been granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, but by the Commissioner of Income Tax and, thus in breach of Section 151 of the Act.

6. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant extracts from ''form for recording reasons for initiating proceedings under section 148 of the act, and for obtaining approval of the commissioner of income tax, central V, mumbai'' tendered across the Bar. The Form itself indicates that the Assessing Office had submitted the proposal to obtain approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax before issuing the notice dated 25th March, 2011. The remark by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the form, is as under:

"12. Remark of the Addl. CIT: Yes. I am satisfied. It is a fit case to reopen the case under section 147 of the Act. The notice under section 148 may be issued subject to CIT approval.

Sd/-

Virendra Ojha

Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Range 10, Mumbai."

It, thereafter, was examined by the Commissioner of Income Tax who expressed his approval in the following form:

"13. Remark of the CIT

Yes, I am satisfied that in view of facts, ... as indicated in the Annexure, it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act.

Sd/-

H.C.Jain

Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central IV, Mumbai."

7. Further, the learned Counsel for the parties also produce before us a letter dated 24th M