A return submitted pursuant to an invalid notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a valid return within the meaning of section 22(3) of the Act, and cannot be ignored or disregarded by the Income Tax Officer.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner, an assessee under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 has challenged four notices, two dated 11th February, 1983 and the other two dated 29th March 1983, all issued under section 148 of the said Act.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, the first two notices dated 11th February 1983 under section 148 of the Act were issued for the assessment year 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 respectively, on the ground that the Income Tax Officer concerned had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner for the aforesaid periods escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. In the last paragraph of those two notices, although it was written that those notices were being issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax/central Board of Revenue but thereafter the said paragraph was deleted.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 11th February 1983, the petitioner had filed returns for those two years. Subsequently, the Income Tax Office concerned issued fresh notices dated 29th March 1983 for those two assessment years and in paragraph 2 of those notices, it was specifically stated that those were issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax/central Board of Revenue.

( 4 ) DR. Pal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken a pure question of law in support of this writ application.

( 5 ) DR. Pal first contends that the first two notices dated 11th February 1983 should be declared invalid, in view of the fact that without taking necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax/central Board of Revenue, the Income Tax Officer issued such notice for reopening an assessment after expiry of more than four years as required under the law.

( 6 ) AS regards the other two notices dated 29 March 1983, Dr. Pal contends that pursuant to the earlier invalid notices dated 11th February 1983, the petitioner having already filed return, there was no scope of giving further notices under section148 of the Act when no assessment had been made on the basis of subsequent returns filed by the petitioner, in compliance with the earlier notices dated 11th February, 1983. In support of such contention, Dr. Pal relies upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. S. Raman Chettiar, reported in 55 ITR 630.

( 7 ) THIS application is opposed by the Income Tax authority and Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has opposed the aforesaid two contentions raised by Dr. Pal.

( 8 ) MR. Mitra contends that the first two notices dated 11th February 1983 were patently illegal, inasmuch as, by those notices the Income Tax Officer tried to reopen assessment made more than four years earlier without taking the required satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax/central Board of Revenue. Mr. Mitra contends, in view of such mistake, the Income Tax Officer concerned after taking satisfaction from the aforesaid authority issued the subsequent two notices dated March 29, 1983. Accordidng to Mr. Mitra, if any return is submitted by the petitioner in obedience to the earlier notice dated 11th February 1983, those are to be ignored, inasmuch as those returns were filed pursuant to an illegal demand. Mr. Mitra, thus, contends that there was no illegality in initiating fresh proceeding by giving fresh notice dated 29th March 1983 after complying with the formalities required under the Income Tax Act. In support of such contention Mr. Mitra relies upon two decisions of the Allahabad High Court, one in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit v. Income Tax Officer and another, reported in 198 ITR 669 and the other in the case of Sukhlal Ice and Cold Storage Company v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. , reported in 199 ITR 129.

( 9 ) THE only question that arises for determination, therefore, in this writ application is whether the Income Tax Of