Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The argument advanced before us challenging the notice is on the ground that as required under section Pl7 of the Act reasons have not been disclosed either in the notice or in the file. In response to the notice learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Rastogi, appears and when we asked whether the reasons are noted in the file, he frankly admitted that no reasons are recorded in the file itself, apart from the notice issued to the assessee. The notice issued to the assessee is as follows :- "The assessee has not disclosed income from all sources liable to tax. I have, therefore, reasons to believe that ir,come chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1990-91. Issue notice u/s 14" Sd/- R.C.P Verma, I.T.O. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of M/s Shambhu Nath Sheo Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [ 1993 (2) PL.J.R. 179 ] to which one of us was party (B.P Singh, J.), In that case under identical circumstances the Division Bench quashed the notice observing as follows :- "We are, therefore, satisfied that the assessing officer acted improperly and without jurisdiction in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the same is accordingly quashed, and any proceeding taken in pursuance thereof is also nullified." 4. We are of the view that the aforesaid observation applies to the facts of this case. Applying the ruling as mentioned above the notice under challenge is quashed, which goes without saying that all further proceedings are also nullified. 5. This application is allowed.