AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated June 26, 1990, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84. In the affidavit-in-opposition the following reasons for reopening the assessment have been disclosed :"the original assessment was made in this case on December 15, 1986, on a total loss of Rs. 2,14,025 only. In the assessment, there were wrong deductions allowed for provision of interest of Rs. 5,19,486 on unpaid municipal tax liability as debited prior to the same being quantified/levied by the Calcutta Corporation. Add. excise duty for Rs. 11,34,704 was also wrongly allowed as deduction, although such liability was ascertained subsequent to 1983-84 assessment year. Thirdly, expenses of Rs. 12,46,235 only relating to earlier years but merged with the claim for current expenses (as certified by the relevant audit report in Schedule 'e', serial No. 11 thereof) was wrongly allowed in the assessment, although the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting generally. For this mistake, there was underassessment of income to the extent of Rs. 29,00,425 only within the meaning of Section 147. I, therefore, propose to reopen the assessment for 1983-84 assessment year in this case under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act and your kind approval is solicited in this regard. (sd.) (S. K. Nandy), assistant Commissioner of income-tax, C. C-2 (3), Calcutta. "

( 2 ) IT appears from the records produced before this court that the sanction of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax was obtained before issuance of the said impugned notice.

( 3 ) AT the hearing, Mr. Murarka, learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended that in this case, the reopening could not have been made in view of the provisions of Section 147 which came into force with effect from April 1, 1989. It is his contention that the notice is barred by limitation under Section 147 as it stood at the material time which is as follows ;"147. Income escaping assessment--If the Assessing Officer, has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. "

( 4 ) THE proviso to Section 147 is material for our purpose. It will be evident from the said proviso that if an assessment is made under Section 143 (3) of the Act for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken for reopening of such assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year. There is no dispute that the assessment in this case was made under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document