JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C J. — This writ petition is directed against the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 L The main objection raised is that the sanction of the competent authority, as prescribed by section 3 51 (2) of the Act has not been obtained by the first respondent The reply of the respondents is that the sanction has been accorded by the Additional Commissioner of the Income Tax by order dated 31-10-1995. A copy of the s; id sanction letter is annexed as Annexure RA. The contention of the petitioners counsel is that the Additional Commissioner will not be a Deputy Commissioner, as contemplated by the section and the only authority empowered by the section is Deputy Commissioner. This contention over-looks the amendment introduced in section 2 (19 A) of the Income fax Act by the Finance Act, 1994 w e. f. 1-6-1994. By the said amendment, the expression "Deputy Commissioner has been defined as a person appointed to be a Deputy Commissioner or an Additional Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 117. In this case, the Additional Commissioner has exercised his powers on 31404995. 2, The next contention is that the assessment relates to much earlier period ending 1989-90 According to learned Counsel, the Additional Commissioner has no power to grant sanction with regard to such a period. There is no substance in this contention. Once the Additional Commissioner falls within the definition of Deputy Commissioner, then he could exercise the power of Deputy Commissioner under section 151 (2) of the Act, which will necessarily relate to an earlier period than the notice. In this case, the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in 1995 At that time, the Additional Commissioner was empowered to grant sanction Hence, the objection fails. 3. The third contention is that the notice is barred by limitation. This is a matter, which can be raised by the petitioner before the concerned authorities. It is only a notice issued under section 148 of the Act and this Court will go into the question of jurisdiction only. Once it is found that the authority during the said period has done the same within his power, as required under the statute, as such, the other objections regarding notice can be raised by the petitioner before the concerned authorities. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. CM. Once it is found that the authority during the said period has done the same within his power, as required under the statute, as such, the other objections regarding notice can be raised by the petitioner before the concerned authorities. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. CM. P. No 645 of 1996: In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the present application is also dismissed and the interim order dated 8-4-1996 is vacated. Application dismissed -