JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 2nd August 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2013-2014 and for quashing an order dated 5th December 2019 passed by respondent no. 1 disposing of the objections filed by petitioner against initiation of reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-2014.

2. For A.Y. 2013-2014 petitioner filed return of income on 30th November 2013 declaring total income at loss of Rs. 4,60,12,34,048/- under normal provisions and Rs. 273 crores under Section 115JB of the Act. Revised return of income was also filed declaring income as shown in original return of income. The assessment was completed on 30th December 2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 24,76,63,28,847/- under normal provisions and Rs. 13,96,21,60,821/- under Section 115Jb of the Act.

3. Thereafter, petitioner received notice dated 2nd August 2019 under Section 148 of the Act saying that there are reasons to believe that petitioner’s income chargeable to tax for A.Y.-2013-2014 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Since the notice has been issued after the expiry of 4 years from the relevant assessment year and petitioner has been assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 as it was then previously would apply. As per the proviso, the onus is on respondents to show that there was failure on the part of petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts required for assessment. Simply stating that as per explanation (1) to Section 147 of the Act, production of books of accounts or other documents from which the Assessing Officer could have, with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the provisio of Section 147 is not enough. This is because as held by the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee. To meet a possible contention that when some account books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the Income Tax Officer might have discovered, the Legislature has put in Explanation to Section 147. The duty, however, does not extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else-far less the assessee to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences - whether of facts or law - he would draw from the primary facts. If from primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to the assessing authority. How could an assessee be charged with failure to communicate an inference, which he might or might not have drawn? It may be pointed out that the Explanation to the sub- section has nothing to do with “inferences” and deals only with the question whether primary material facts not disclosed could still be said to be constructively disclosed on the ground that with due diligence the Income-tax Officer could have discovered them from the facts actually disclosed. The Explanation cannot enlarge the scope of the section by casting a duty on the assessee to disclose “inferences” to draw the proper inferences being the duty imposed on the Inc