AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yatindra Singh, J.—The main question involved in these writ petitions is, should the initiation for the assessment of escaped income--on the basis of capital gains due to acquisition of Petitioner''s land--be nipped in the bud at the threshold?
The Facts
Relating to acquisition of land
The Petitioner''s 27,225 square yards of land was acquired by the Meerut Development Authority (the MDA) under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1987.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut (the SLAO) made an award on 22-2-1990. He awarded Rs. 50 per square yard. In pursuance of the award, the Petitioner received Rs. 21,26,757 as compensation on 30-6-1990.
The Petitioner filed an application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the district court for enhancement of compensation. The case was referred and the reference was allowed on 11-5-1992. The Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut (the ADJ) enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 240 per square yard.
The MDA filed an appeal against the award of the ADJ dated 11-5-1992. It was numbered as First Appeal No. 1050 of 1992. During pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner received the additional compensation, solatium, and interest amounting to Rs. 1,22,56,473 on 16-8-1993 without any security or guarantee.
The appeal filed by the MDA before the High Court was partly allowed on 12-1-1995 and the market value of the land was reduced to Rs. 75 per square yard.
The Petitioners as well as some other tenure holders filed appeals before the Supreme Court. Their appeals were allowed on 30-4-1997. The Supreme Court enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 175 per square yards. It was more than the compensation awarded by the High Court but less than that by the ADJ.
Relating to income tax
The Petitioner had neither filed any income tax returns nor was she assessed for any of the years. The income arising out capital gains by compulsory acquisition was also never disclosed to the income tax Department by the Petitioner.
The Commissioner, income tax, Meerut (the CIT) initially issued a notice under Sub-section (6) of Section 133 [Section 133(6)] of the income tax Act (the Act) on 25-4-2003 in respect of assessment year (AY) 1998-99 requiring information from the Petitioner about the acquisition of the land and the compensation received in pursuance thereof.
The Petitioner filed her objection against the notice on 7-7-2003 stating that the initial compensation or the enhanced compensation was received before assessment year 1998-99. So the question of assessment due to capital gains or payment of tax in assessment year 1998-99 did not arise.
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (the AO) issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 15-10-2003 for the assessment year 1998-99 stating therein that this was being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Addl. Commissioner, Range, Meerut (the Addl. Commissioner).
The Petitioner filed her returns for assessment year 1998-99 under protest on 17-11-2003 showing nil income.
Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 54 (Tax) of 2004 (the first WP) challenging the notice u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment of the escaped income for assessment year 1998-99.
In the first WP, the notice were issued on 19-1-2004 and the interim order was granted that the proceeding for assessment may go on, however, the final order may not be passed.
During pendency of the first WP, the notices dated 1-5-2006 were issued for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95. The Petitioner filed her return for the years on 16-6-2006 showing nil income.
The Petitioner also applied for the reasons for issuing notices for the aforesaid years. The reasons for assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94 were the same. However, the reason for assessment year 1994-95 was slightly different.
The Petitioner filed writ petition No. 991 (Tax) of 2007 (the second WP) against the notices u/s 148 of the Act in respect of assessment year 1994-95 and writ petition No. 994 (Tax) of 2007 (the third WP) against the notices issued u/s 148 in respect of assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94.
The second and third W Ps were also entertained and interim orders were granted on 1-8-2007 that the assessment proceedings may go on and the assessment order may be passed but it would not be served upon the Petitioner without the leave of the court.
Points for Determination
We have heard Sri RR Agrawal and Sri Suyash Agrawal, counsel for the Petitioner; Sri Shambhu Chopra and Sri Ashok Kumar for the Respondents.1. The following points arise for determination in the case :
(i) Whether the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;
(ii) Whether the notices are barred by time;
(iii) Whether the notices are required to be issued by Joint Commissioner;
(iv) Whether the notices for assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 are bad due to lack of satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner;
(v) Whether Section 151 of the Act is applicable to the cases covered u/s 150 of the Act;
(vi) Whether the satisfaction/sanction of the Addl. Commissioner for assessment year 1998-99 for issuing notice is valid?
1st Point: Had valid reasons
The notices in the three writ petitions relate to assessment years 1998-99, 1994-95 and 1989-90 to 1993-94 respectively. The reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment for these years are interconnected, however they are different.
In substance, the reason that income has escaped assessment in :
(i) Assessment year 1998-99, involved in the first WP, are as follows:
The compensation of the acquired land was finally settled by the Supreme Court on 10-4-1997. The appeal of the Petitioner was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 175 per square yard; the income could not be assessed till compensation was finally settled in view of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxman Dass and Ram Murti,
The Petitioner failed to declare and file return of income chargeable to tax (the income as estimated is also indicated in the notice).
(ii) Assessment year 1994-95, involved in the second WP, are as follows:
The compensation of the acquired land was finally settled by the Supreme Court on 10-4-1997. The appeal of the Petitioner was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 175 per square yard; the Petitioner received the enhanced compensation determined by the ADJ of Rs. 67,24,575 with interest of Rs. 55,31,898 from the date of acquisition to the date of payment on 16-8-1993; in view of Section 45(5) of the Act, the additional income is assessable in the year of receipt; the interest on compensation is assessable on accrued basis in view of Ashwani Dhingra Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others,
The Petitioner failed to declare and file return of her income.
(iii) Assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-94, involved in the third writ petition, are as follows :
The compensation of the acquired land was finally settled by the Supreme Court on 10-4-1997. The appeal of the Petitioner was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 175 per square yard; the Petitioner received the enhanced compensation determined by the ADJ of Rs. 67,24,575 with interest of Rs. 55,31,898 from the date of acquisition to the date of payment on 16-8-1993; the accrued interest on the compensation turns out to be Rs. 8,69,950 per annum. The interest on compensations was chargeable on accrued basis in view of Ashwani Dhingra (supra), the Petitioner failed to declare and file return of her income for assessment in the years 1989-90 to 1993-94.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that :
The capital gain was to be calculated in accordance with Sub-section (5) of Section 45 (see below)2 [Section 45(5)] of the Act; u/s 45(5)(a), the capital gain was to be calculated with reference to the compensation received at the first instance. It was on 30-6-1990 (AY 1991-92); the assessment of the enhanced compensation was to be done when it was received u/s 45(5)(b) of the Act. It was on 16-8-1993 (AY 1994-95).
The income could be assessed in the assessment year 1998-99.
The counsel for the Respondents submitted that:
The appeal of the MDA was allowed by the High Court on 21-1-1995 and the amount was reduced; the appeal of the Petitioner was allowed by the Supreme Court on 30-4-1997 and the Petitioner was entitled to receive further amount in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 30-4-1997 in assessment year 1998-99; The compensation could be assessed in the year 1998-99.
The W Ps do not arise out of the proceeding against any assessment under the Act. They are against the notice for initiating the assessment proceedings. Whether the Petitioner is liable to pay any income tax for the assessment years for which notices have been issued is not to be decided in these proceedings. The only question to be decided in the W Ps is, whether there was any material before the Assessing Officer to believe that income had escaped assessment.
The Supreme Court decision relating to acquisition of Petitioner''s land came in the assessment year 1998-99. By the decision, the appeal of the Petitioner was allowed and compensation was enhanced. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was no material before the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1998-99. The notice for assessment year 1998-99 at this stage cannot be quashed.
Admittedly, the Petitioner received enhanced compensation along with interest on 16-8-1993 (AY 1994-95). The interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be charged accrual basis. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was no material for assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95. The notices for these years are also not invalid on this ground.
In our opinion the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment is not vitiated. He had valid reasons to issue notice. The notices cannot be quashed on this ground.
2nd Point: Notice not barred by time
In case the income escapes assessment, then the limitation for issuing notice, is provided in the first proviso to Section 147 and Section 150. The first proviso to Section 147 is applicable only where the assessment was made u/s 143(3) or u/s 147 of the Act. In this case, no earlier assessment was made and as such the first proviso to Section 147 has no application.
Section 149 of the Act is titled as ''Time-limit for notice''. It provides limitation of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment amounts to or likely to amount to rupees one lakh or more. In that event, the time-limit is six years.
The escaped income chargeable to tax is likely to be more than one lakh for assessment year 1998-99. In view of this, limitation would be six years. The notice for assessment year 1998-99 was issued on 15-10-2003 within six years. This is not hit by the time-limit u/s 149 of the Act.
The notice for the assessment year 1989-90 upto year 1994-95 were issued on 1-5-2006. These notices undoubtedly are beyond six years. However, time-limit in the notice for these years or for that matter in the assessment year 1998-99 is not covered by Section 149 but is covered by Section 150 of the Act (see below)3, where no limitation is provided for.
Section 150 is titled as ''Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeals, etc''. Sub-section (1) of Section 150 [Section 150(1)] begins with ''notwithstanding'' clause. It overrides Section 149 and provides that notice can be issued at any time or in other words there is no limitation, if assessment, reassessment, or re-computation was being undertaken in order to give effect to any finding or direction contained in any order passed by; any authority in proceeding under the Act; or a court in proceeding under any other law.
This shows that time-limit prescribed u/s 149 of the Act did not apply, where assessment, reassessment or recomputation was required in pursuance of any finding in any order passed, under the Act, or by a court in any proceeding under any other law.
In these cases, the assessment proceeding is being taken in pursuance of the award regarding compensation by the Supreme Court under the Land Acquisition Act. The assessment is in pursuance of the finding recorded by a court under the other law within the meaning of Section 150(1) of the Act. This section is applicable to the present proceedings and there is no limitation for issue of notice.
In our opinion, the notice for assessment year 1998-99 is not only covered by Section 150(1) of the Act but is also within the limitation provided u/s 149 of the Act;
The notices for other assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 are covered by Section 150(1) of the Act, where no limitation is provided for.
3rd Point: Notice need not be by Joint Commissioner
The counsel for the Petitioner CIT v. B. Sumangala Devi [2009] 314 ITR 127 (Kar.) and submitted that:
In view of Section 151(2) of the Act, the notices could be issued only by the Joint Commissioner; He had not issued any notice; The notices were illegally issued by the Assessing Officer, who was subordinate to the Joint Commissioner.
In these W Ps, the notices were not issued by the Joint Commissioner but were issued by the Assessing Officer namely the income tax Officer, Ward-I (4), Meerut. He is below the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Are the notices invalid for this reasons?
Section 151 of the Act is titled as ''Sanction for issue of notices''. Section 151(1) applies to the cases where the assessment u/s 143(3) or Section 147 was made. Here, no assessment was made and as such, Section 151(2) of the Act was applicable.
Section 151(2) of the Act (see below)4 provides that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer.
Section 151 does not provide for the notice to be issued by the Joint Commissioner. It only provides that the Joint Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. If the Joint Commissioner was satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, then the notice could be issued by the Assessing Officer.
The aforesaid intention is clear from the explanation to Section 151 of the Act. It was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 1-10-1998. This further clarifies that the Joint Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner as the case may be should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and need not issue such notice himself.
In B. Sumangala''s case (supra), the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court did observe that Section 151 of the Act required that the notice should be issued by the officer holding the rank not less than that of the Deputy Commissioner (as was the section at that time). However, with due respect to the Judges of that case, this is not correct.
In our opinion, notice u/s 151 of the Act is not to be issued by the Joint Commissioner but could be issued by the Assessing Officer. The only requirement is that after expiry of 4 years, the Joint Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
4th & 5th Point: Notice assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 - Invalid
While deciding the third point, we have indicated that in case notice u/s 148 is being issued after four years then the Joint Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (see footnote 3). In this case, the Addl. Commissioner was satisfied u/s 151 of the Act for issuing notice for the assessment year 1998-99. This section uses the word ''Joint Commissioner''. However, this does not make any difference.
Section 2 of the Act is the definition section. Its Sub-section (28C) [Section 2(28C)] defines the word ''Joint Commissioner'' and explains that it means a person appointed to be Joint Commissioner of income tax or Addl. Commissioner of income tax under Sub-section (1) of Section 107. In view of this, the Joint Commissioner includes an Addl. Commissioner as well.
There is no illegality in the notice for assessment year 1998-99 on this account. However, the same cannot be said about the notices for the other years.
The notice for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 are on the record. These notices are printed and the necessary details are filled in. The last paragraph of these notices contains information whether the notice was issued with the satisfaction of the Commissioner or not. This paragraph in the notices for these years has been scored out.
In paragraph 64 of the second and third writ petition, it has been stated that the notices were issued without sanction of the Joint Commissioner. This has not been denied in the counter affidavit. In view of this, it is held that these notices have been issued without sanction of the Joint Commissioner.
Section 151 applies to case covered by Section 150
The counsel for the Respondents B.A.R. Abdul Rahman Saheb Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-Ward and Another, and Sukhdayal Pahwa Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 149, [Section 149(2)] provides that provision of Sub-section (1) of Section [Section 149(1)] is subject to Section 151. However, there is no such provision in Section 150; Section 151 of Act applies to Section 149 but it does not apply to cases u/s 150 of the Act; the notices for assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94 fall u/s 150 of the Act; and Section 151 of the Act is not applicable.
The B.A.R. Abdul Rahman Saheb''s case (supra) and the Sukhdayal Pahwa''s case (supra) were decided by the division benches the Andhra Pradesh and MP High Courts. There are observations that Section 151 of the Act applies to cases u/s 149 but not to cases u/s 150 of the Act. With due respect to the Judges deciding those cases, we beg to differ. Our reasons are contained in the succeeding paragraphs.
Section 148 (see below)5 is titled ''Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment''. The notices are issued in case income escapes assessment. This is irrespective of the fact that the case is covered by Section 149 or Section 150.
Section 151(2) (see Footnote 3) provides that ''no notice will issue u/s 148 by an Assessing Officer...'' This shows that Section 148 is subject to Section 151 of the Act. The condition mentioned therein will apply to cases covered by Section 150 of the Act.
The aforesaid intention is also clear from Section 150 of the Act. This section provides ''Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 149, the notice u/s 148 may be issued at any time....; subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 150. If the legislature wanted Section 151 of the Act not to apply to cases covered u/s 150 then words would have been/Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 149 and Section 151''.
The fact that the Section 151 as indicated in the preceding paragraph is not mentioned in Section 150 shows that Section 151 of the Act is applicable to the cases covered not only u/s 149 but also to the cases covered u/s 150 of the Act.
It is correct that Section 149(2) of the Act (see below)6 provides that notice u/s 149(1) is subject to Section 151 of the Act and there is no such provision in Section 150 but it does not make any difference. Section 149(2) of the Act is merely clarificatory even if it was not there, the result would have been the same.
In our opinion, if a case falls u/s 150 then the notice can be issued at any time, without regard to the time-limits mentioned in Section 149. However, the previous satisfaction/sanction of the Joint Commissioner must be procured if the notice is issued after the lapse of the specified period mentioned in Section 151 of the Act namely four years.
The notices for assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 have been issued without satisfaction of Joint Commissioner. They are invalid and are quashed. However, we clarify that quashing of the notices will not prohibit the authorities to issue fresh notice in accordance with law.
6th Point: Sanction for assessment year 1998-99 valid
The counsel for the Petitioner cited two division bench cases of our court reported in Munno Lal Kiedar Nath v. Union of India 1978 UPT 563 and Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer, and submitted that :
There was no application of mind by Addl. Commissioner while being satisfied; it was mechanical; and it is liable to be set aside.
The cases cited by the Petitioner are distinguishable on facts. There were special reasons for commenting on the satisfaction recorded. There are no such reasons in the present case. The cases cited and are not applicable.
In Munno Lal Kiedar Nath''s case (supra), first notice for reassessment was given on two grounds and the reassessment was done on that basis. However, this was set-aside on the finding that the Assessing Officer had no material for reasons to believe that any income had escaped assessment. Subsequently second notice for reassessment was given. In this notice apart from two grounds that were previously mentioned--some more grounds were also indicated.
The question involved in Munno Lal Kiedar Nath''s case (supra) was, whether once an order with reference to some grounds had become final then could on the basis of the same very grounds along with some others, a second notice could be given.
It is in this light the Division Bench held,
''The assessment orders already made by the income tax Officer regarding them and others had been quashed. The Commissioner of income tax still gave sanction for starting the proceedings in respect of these two items as well. This clearly shows the non-application of his mind to the controversy, whether the present was a fit case for according sanction or not. Had he applied his mind properly he would have found that as a competent court had already found that the income tax Officer did not have justification, to start proceedings of reassessment on their basis, the approval to initiate proceedings afresh in respect of these items could not be given''.
The facts of the present case are entirely different. Here the earlier reassessment proceeding were never quashed. On the contrary, it was a case where the Petitioner received a huge amount of compensation that was liable to be taxed as capital gains and yet she chose not to disclose the same. The Munno Lal Kiedar Nath''s case (supra), is not applicable to the present case.
In the Raj Kishore Prasad''s case (supra), the Division Bench of our court held that the initiation of proceedings for reopening the assessment was barred by time. The notice for reassessment was quashed on this ground.
It was observed by the court as a passing remark (obiter dicta) that when the notice was barred by time then the Commissioner ought not to have been satisfied, or granted sanction/approval--as the satisfaction is not mechanical.
In the Raj Kishore Prasad''s case (supra) the notice for reassessment was barred by time. This is not the case here. The Raj Kishore Prasad''s case (supra) is distinguishable.
In our opinion, satisfaction of the Addl. Commissioner on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is not vitiated.
Conclusions
Our conclusions are as follows :
(i) There is material to believe that income had escaped assessment and the notices are not invalid on this account;
(ii) The notices are not barred by the time;
(in) In the cases covered u/s 151 of the income tax Act, the notice is to be issued by the Assessing Officer. They need not be issued by the Joint Commissioner. The only requirement is that the Joint Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer;
(iv) The satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1998-99 is not vitiated. The notice for this year is valid.
(v) Section 151 of the income tax Act applies to cases covered by Section 150 of the income tax Act;
(vi) There is no satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner for the notices for assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95. They are invalid. However, the authorities are at liberty to issue fresh notices in accordance with law.
In view of our conclusions,
(i) The writ petition No. 54 (Tax) of 2004 is dismissed. The notice u/s 148 for assessment year 1998-99 is upheld. The Petitioner may file an application along with the certified copy of this order and appear before the Assessing Officer in the week commencing 11th October, 2010. Thereafter the Assessing Officer may decide the case in accordance with law.
(ii) The writ petition Nos. 991 (Tax) of 2007 and 994 (Tax) of 2007 are allowed. The notices for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 are quashed. However, it will be open to the Respondent to issue fresh notices in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition No. 54 (Tax) of 2004 is dismissed and Writ Petition Nos. 991 (Tax) of 2007 and 994 (Tax) of 2007 are allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------- 1. We are thankful to the counsel appearing in the case for correcting the part of the judgment under the heading THE FACTS'', ''POINTS FOR DETERMINATION'' and sections mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. However, if there are any mistakes, they are ours.
The relevant part of Section 45 of the income tax Act is as follows :
Capital Gains 45
...
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset, being a transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which was determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India, and the compensation or the consideration for such transfer is enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or other authority, the capital gain shall be dealt with in the following manner, namely :
(a) the capital gain computed with reference to the compensation awarded in the first instance or, as the case may be, the consideration determined or approved in the first instance by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India shall be chargeable as [income under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which such compensation or part thereof, or such consideration or part thereof was first received]; and
(b) the amount by which the compensation or consideration is enhanced or further enhanced by the court, Tribunal or other authority shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which such amount is received by the Assessee.
(c) Where in the assessment for any year, the capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset is computed by taking the compensation or consideration referred to in Clause (1) or, as the case may be, enhanced compensation or consideration referred to in Clause (b), and subsequently such compensation or consideration is reduced by any court, Tribunal or other authority, such assessed capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by such court. Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the consideration.
Explanation (i): In relation to the amount referred to in Clause (b), the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement shall be taken to be nil.
The relevant part of Section 150 of the Act is as follows :
Provision for case where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal etc.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 149, the notice u/s 148 may be issued at any time for purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law.
The relevant part of Section 151 of the Act is as follows :
Sanction for issue of notice.--** ** ** (2) In case other than a case falling under Sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued u/s 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice u/s 148, need not issue such notice himself.
The relevant part of Section 148 of the Act is as follows :
Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.--Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation u/s 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the Assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s 139 :
The relevant part of Section 149 is as follows :
The time-limit for Section 149.
...
(2): The provisions of Sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of Section 151.
...