Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. After having heard counsel at some length and also after having perused the records placed before us by learned counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that there are no questions of law which require our consideration and which can be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. Admittedly, the proceeding against the assessee was initiated long after the completion of the year in which the alleged gift was made, the shares which are said to have been sold for inadequate consideration having been transferred on 24th March, 1983. The assessee had not filed any return under the GT Act for that year and there was no proceeding in respect of the assessee which had culminated in an order under s. 15(3) or 15(1) of the GT Act. The notice that was issued under s. 16 was only issued on 10th December, 1990. That notice could only have been issued under s. 16(1B)(b) of the Act. The provision reads as under : "(b) In a case, other than a case falling under cl. (a), no notice shall be issued under sub-s. (1) by an AO, who is below the rank of Dy. CGT, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Dy. CIT is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such AO, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice". The precondition for the initiation of proceedings under s. 16(1B)(b) of the Act is the satisfaction of the Dy CGT on the reasons recorded by the AO that the case is a fit one for the issue of that notice under the provision. The records relating to the notice have been placed before us. It is seen from a perusal of the records that the Dy. CGT had not, after examining the reasons recorded by the AO, formed the opinion that it was a fit case for issue of notice. The AO has taken it on himself and decided that it is a fit case for issue of notice. That was wholly insufficient for invoking s. 16(1B)(b) of the Act. CGT had not, after examining the reasons recorded by the AO, formed the opinion that it was a fit case for issue of notice. The AO has taken it on himself and decided that it is a fit case for issue of notice. That was wholly insufficient for invoking s. 16(1B)(b) of the Act. In cases, where proceedings were commenced four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and where no order had been made under s. 15(3) of the Act, Parliament has expressly provided that such proceedings can only be initiated on the satisfaction of the Dy. CGT and not of any authority below that level.The Tribunal has rightly held that the proceedings initiated by the AO were illegal. We do not see any error in the order of the Tribunal having regard to the statutory provision, the facts on record and also the facts which we have gathered from a perusal of the records which have been placed before us by learned counsel for the Revenue. The tax case petition, is, therefore, dismissed.