A notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, must clearly indicate the capacity in which the assessee is being served, and the Commissioner's sanction must be applied with due care and attention, and not mechanically.

( 1 ) ON the 22nd of February, 1973, the ITO, 'e' Ward, Dist. 1 (2), Calcutta, issued the following notice u/s. 148 of the IT. Act, 1961. "notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income-tax Officer, Dist, 1 (2)/k-Ward, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta-1. Dated the 22-2-1973. To, Smt. B. D. Saraogi and others, 2a, Girish Avenue, Calcutta. Whereas I have. reason to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1965-66 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I therefore propose to assess the income for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of your income in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment year. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal IV. (Sd/ ). Income-tax Officer, 'e' Ward, Dist. 1 (2), Cal. "

( 2 ) THE validity of the said notice has been questioned in this writ proceeding.

( 3 ) VARIOUS grounds have been taken in para. 10 of the petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate-General appearing in support of this application has stated before me that although various grounds have been taken in the petition, he will attack the validity of the notice only on two grounds, namely, (1) the notice is invalid as the notice does not indicate or mention whether B. D. Saraogi and others is a firm or HUF or association of persons, and (2) the sanction of the Commissioner is mechanical and in giving the sanction the Commissioner has not applied his mind. The learned Advocate-General has further stated that although he is not pressing the other grounds in this petition, it should not be considered that the other grounds are abandoned or are being given up by the petitioner. According to the learned Advocate-General, these two grounds are sufficient for the purpose of the disposal of this application and in that view of the matter he has confined his arguments only to these two grounds. The learned Advocate-General has fairly stated that ground No. 1, namely, that the notice is invalid has not been specifically taken in the petition. It is, however, his contention that although the said ground has not been taken specifically in the petition, he is entitled to urge that ground as the said question is a pure question of law and does not require any investigation of facts and the said question goes to the very root of the matter. In support of his submission that he is entitled to raise this ground without taking the ground specifically in the petition, the learned Advocate-General has relied on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and also of this court.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate-General has drawn my attention to Section 2 (31) of the Act which defines person. He has also drawn my attention to Section 2 (35) of the Act which defines principal officer. He has referred to Section 282 and to the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) (c) of that section and also to Section 148 of the Act. The learned Advocate-General has argued that the notice is a statutory requirement and in the absence of a valid notice the ITO does not acquire any jurisdiction to start reassessment proceeding. It is the argument of the learned Advocate-General that a valid notice goes to the very root of the matter and is the basic requirement under the statute and the service of a valid notice is essential for assumption of the jurisdiction and power of re-opening an assessment. The learned Advocate-General has argued that in the instant case the notice must be considered to be invalid for the following reasons, (a) The notice is addressed to Smt. B. D. Saraogi and Ors. It is not stated in the notice apart from B. D. Saraogi which other persons are being addressed in this notice. (b) It is also not stated in what capacity Smt. B. D. Saraogi and others were being served