A.K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of assessee are directed against order of learned CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi, dt. 28th Dec., 2005 for asst. yr. 1997-98. For sake of convenience, both are being disposed of by this common order. First, we take up cross-objection of assessee. Grounds raised by assessee in this cross-objection read as under: That having regard to facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing assessment order passed under s. 143(3)/148 also on grounds: (a) that reopening of assessment was void for reason that approval was given under s. 151 by learned CIT, whereas as per law satisfaction of Jt. CIT was required, in terms of provisions of s. 151(2) as original assessment was made under s. 143(1). (b) that in assessment framed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147, primary onus to show that impugned amount was income of assessee was not discharged by learned AO and accordingly action of learned AO was contrary to law and facts in shifting his entire burden upon assessee. (c) that order passed under s. 143(3)/147 was in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of cross-examination was granted, n o r adverse material used against assessee, was confronted to assessee by learned AO. Regarding ground No. 1(a), it was submitted by learned Authorised Representative of assessee that in present case, original assessment was completed under s. 143(1), hence for purpose of reopening, provisions for s. 151(2) are applicable. It was pointed out that as per provisions of s. 151(2), AO in present case being below rank of Jt. CIT should have taken approval of Jt. CIT before issuing notice under s. 148 but in present case, AO has taken approval of CIT and not from Jt. CIT. Our attention was drawn to notice issued by AO under s. 148 which is appearing on page No. 4 of paper book and it was pointed out that as per this notice, notice was issued by AO after obtaining necessary satisfaction of CIT. It was pointed out that in reassessment order also, it is stated by AO that proposal to initiate proceedings under s. 148 of IT Act was sent to CIT, Delhi-IX and after obtaining approval from him by letter dt. 26th May, 2003, notice under s. 148 was issued. It was submitted that in view of these, there is no doubt that satisfaction was obtained by AO from CIT and not from Jt. CIT. It was contended that since section requires satisfaction of Jt. CIT specifically, it cannot be substituted by any other officer even if he is senior to Jt. CIT. It was submitted that under similar facts, similar issue was decided by Tribunal in favour of assessee in case of Shanti Vijay & Co. vs. ITO (1998) 60 TTJ (Del) 748. It was also submitted that similar issue was decided in favour of assessee in case of R.P. Gupta & Sons also as per ITA No. 5371/Del/2004, dt. 23rd Sept., 2005 and copy of this Tribunal judgment was submitted. Our attention was drawn to para Nos. 25 to 29 of Tribunal judgment, it was also submitted that in case of ITO vs. Rajesh Garg also, similar issue was decided in favour of assessee as per ITA No. 321/Del/2005, dt. 6th May, 2006 and copy of Tribunal judgment was also submitted. It was pointed out that in para No. 8 of this Tribunal judgment, this issue was decided by Tribunal. Regarding ground Nos. 1(b) and 1(c), it was submitted that it is noted by learned CIT(A) on page No. 5 of his order that as per records, assessee was neither provided with copy of statement of Shri Satish Goel, Prop., of M/s R.K. Aggarwal & Co. nor copy of material gathered by Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) Gurgaon was provided, although both these materials were used by AO against assessee. It was submitted that in light of this fact, it is apparent that principle of natural justice was not followed and hence impugned order passed by AO is not valid. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Tribunal judgment in case of Rajesh Kumar vs. ITO as per ITA No. 5425/Del/2004 dt. 22nd Sept., 2006 [reported at (2008) 12 DTR (Del) 176 Ed.], copy of which was submitted. Our attention was drawn to para No. 7 of Tribunal judgment. Reliance was also placed on following judicial pronouncements: (a) CIT vs. Nupam Kapur (1995) 212 ITR 491 (P&H)(sic); (b) CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (Del) 353: (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del); (c) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 115; (d) CIT vs. Atul Jain (2007) 212 CTR (Del) 42: (2007) 164 TAXMAN 33 (Del). As against this, learned Departmental Representative of Revenue supported orders of authorities below. We have heard rival submissions and perused material available on record and have gone through judgments cited by learned Authorised Representative of assessee. We find that in present case, it is admitted position that AO in present case is below rank of Jt. CIT because AO in present case is ITO. It is also admitted position that original assessment was completed under s. 143(1) and hence for issuance of notice under s. 148, provisions of s. 151(2) are to be complied with. It is also admitted position that in present case, AO has obtained satisfaction of CIT and not of Jt. CIT. Under this factual position, we find that this issue stands covered in favour of assessee by Tribunal judgment rendered in case of R.P. Gupta & Sons (HUF) (supra). facts are identical because in that case also, provisions of s. 151(2) were applicable and satisfaction was obtained by AO from CIT and not from Jt. CIT. Under these facts, it was held by Tribunal in that case that as per s. 151(2), prescribed authority is Jt. CIT, such authority cannot be substituted, satisfaction being subjective satisfaction. In that case, Tribunal followed Tribunal decision in case of Shanti Vijay & Co. (supra) and it was held that in absence of admitted non-obtaining of mandatory requisite approval of prescribed authority, i.e. Jt. CIT, notices issued are bad in law. In case of Rajesh Garg (supra) also, it was held by Tribunal that approval or sanction was to be obtained from Jt. CIT and not from CIT and since AO has obtained sanction from CIT, irregularity committed in obtaining sanction is not recallable and CIT(A) was justified in holding that action of AO is bad in law. In this case also, Tribunal has followed Tribunal decision rendered in case of Shanti Vijay & Co. (supra). Since facts are identical, by following these judgments, in present case also, we hold that in absence of admitted non-obtaining of mandatory requisite approval of prescribed authority, i.e. Jt. CIT, notice issued by AO under s. 148 is bad in law. Ground No.1(a) of assessee s cross-objection stands allowed. Once it is held by us that notice under s. 148 issued by AO is bad in law, assessment framed by AO in pursuance to such notice stands vacated and hence remaining grounds raised by assessee become academic in nature. However, we find that on this aspect also, assessee deserves to succeed. clear finding is given by learned CIT(A) on page No. 5 of his order that assessee was not provided with copy of statement of Shri Satish Goel, Prop., of M/s R.K. Aggarwal & Co. nor copy of material gathered by Dy. Director IT (Inv.), Gurgaon was provided to assessee although both these were used by AO against assessee. In case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), it was held that it is fundamental proposition of IT law that AO has to confront assessee with any material which he has gathered and which he proposed to use in assessment. It was held that any evidence which does need basic requirement has to be excluded from consideration. This Tribunal judgment has been upheld by Hon ble Delhi High Court in IT Appeal No. 545 of 2007, dt. 4th April, 2008, copy of which was submitted by learned Authorised Representative of assessee. Other judgments cited by learned Authorised Representative of assessee also support this contention of assessee. Since in present case, AO had heavily relied on statement of Shri Satish Goel, Prop. of M/s R.K. Aggarwal & Co. without providing copy thereof to assessee, this action of AO is clearly in violation of principle of natural justice and vitiates whole assessment proceedings. Respectfully following judgments cited by learned Authorised Representative of assessee, we hold that these materials cannot be considered to decide present issue against assessee, in this view of matter, present assessment order cannot be sustained. In result, cross-objection of assessee stands allowed. In Revenue s appeal, only ground raised by Revenue reads as under: "On facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 13,87,773 by holding that reopening and merits of addition are in contravention of principle of natural justice." Since while deciding cross-objection of assessee, it is held by us that present assessment order is not valid because of non-compliance of s. 151(2) and because of violation of principle of natural justice, ground raised by. Revenue does not survive. No separate adjudication is called for because when reassessment itself does not survive, no addition or deletion thereof survives. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of assessee is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. MRS. NAVEEN KHANNA