Order The petitioner was assessed as individual for the assessment year 1962-63 (accounting period ending Dewali 6.11.61). The petitioner was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Mr. K. Sinha. The total income was computed by the said Income-tax Officer at Rs.1,70,613. During the said assessment year, according to the petitioner, he obtained loans by way of Hundies from several parties and paid interest on the said loans for the said year. 2. The petitioner alleges that he produced all books of accounts, statement of details of the accounts in regard to his income and expenditure as well as the creditors and other evidence at the time of original assessment and the assessment was completed after taking into consideration all the material facts disclosed by the petitioners. 3. Against the order, of assessment the petitioner appealed. The said appeal was allowed in part by order dated July 23, 1970 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Thereafter the petitioner appealed to the Tribunal against the said decision of the Appellate Astistant Commissioner of Income-tax. 4. On March 25, 1971 the petitioner received a notice under S. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requiring him to file a return as the respondent No. 1 had reasons to believe that the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1962-63 had escaped assessment within the meaning of S. 147 of the new Act. The notice was issued after obtaining sanction from the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I, Calcutta. 5. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said notice by means of the present proceeding under Article 226 on the ground that there was no material before the respondent No.1 on which he could reasonably come to the belief that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1962-63. Indeed, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 had no material which could lead him to believe that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment for the said assessment year. The impugned notice, therefore according to the petitioner is bad and of no effect. 6. It appears, however, from the affidavit of respondent No. 1 affirmed on August 25, 1972 and filed in the proceeding that two minor sons of the petitioner, Kamal Kishor. Chaurasia and Anand Kishor Chaurasia, filed volunary returns for the assessment year 1962-63 through their mother in regard to their income from the properties. 6. It appears, however, from the affidavit of respondent No. 1 affirmed on August 25, 1972 and filed in the proceeding that two minor sons of the petitioner, Kamal Kishor. Chaurasia and Anand Kishor Chaurasia, filed volunary returns for the assessment year 1962-63 through their mother in regard to their income from the properties. Such income was shown to be Rs.4371/- and 7639/- respectively. These properties were alleged to have been given to the minor sons by the mother. 7. In the course of investigation during the assessment of the said alleged income of the minors it was found that Ganjalai Devi, the mother, had no independent source of income, but was dependent on the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid it may be reasonably inferred that the source of the consideration for the said properties came from the petitioner and the said sums represented the undisclosed income of the petitioner. The petitioner did not disclose the said income from the house properties in his return of income for the assessment year 1962-63. The said materials came to the possession of the respondent No.1 subsequent to the assessment of the petitioner's income for the said assessment year. 8. Thus it appears that it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 had no reasonable ground to come to the belief that during the assessment year 1962-63, the income chargeable to tax of the petitioner had escaped assessment due to petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessing his income for the relevant year. It further appears that sanction or approval to the initiation of proceedings under S. 147(a) in the instant case was obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I who was at the relevant time entrusted with the duty of according approval to such proposal by the Central Board of Direct Taxes und gave such approval after going through the facts of the case. 9. It should be noted that the minors, although filed their returns through their mother in regard to the income of the said properties, the same was assessed by way of protective assessment subject to final determination of the inclusion of the income, in the income of the assessee. It was not decided at that time as to who was the owner of the said property. It was not decided at that time as to who was the owner of the said property. It should be noted that a Special Bench of this Court in Lakhmoni Mewal Das v. Income-tax Officer 'I' Ward, District VI & ors., 1972 Tax LR 815 was pleased to hold that the volume of disclosure made by the assessee at the time of assessment does not make S. 147 of the Act of 1961 inapplicable where the assessee does not disclose the true and genuine facts and materials for the purpose of assessing his income for the relevant year. Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 as well as S. 147(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 cast a duty upon the assessee not merely of disclosing fully all material facts but also of disclosing them truly. 10. Thus, if in any case subsequently it transpires or the Income-tax Officer comes to know certain facts which leads him to believe reasonably that the assessee did not disclose all the material facts for the assessment of his income for the particular assessment year not only fully nor truly the Income-tax Officer will have jurisdiction to re-open the assessment for that particular year subject to other provisions of the Act. 11. The question whether the mother of the minors had her separate source of income except from the petitioner and received the same from the husband has a proximate connection with the income of the husband and thus the case reported in 77 ITR 27, Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III v. Prembhai Parekh & ors. relied on by Mr. Pranab Pal in support of the petitioner, in my view, does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The abovementioned question can only be decided in the re-opened assessment proceeding and, not in the instant Writ proceeding. 12. Although there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to disclose the income of other persons but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my view, there was a duty cast upon the assessee to disclose the income from the house property of the minor sons. 12. Although there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to disclose the income of other persons but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my view, there was a duty cast upon the assessee to disclose the income from the house property of the minor sons. In the facts and circumstances of this case I cannot come to the conclusion that the belief on the part of the respondent No. 1 had not been formed on proper material as required by S. 147(a) of the 1961 Act. 13. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I at the relevant time also has affirmed an affidavit and has stated on oath that the respondent No.1 submitted her proposal before him in regard to the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under S. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1962-63. In the proposal the respondent No. 1 had stated her reasons for granting of approval of such initiation of re-opening proceeding. After going through her report the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I who had the jurisdiction over the petitioner's case at the relevant time granted the sanction. 14. In the premises, the application has no merit and the application is dismissed. The Rule Nisi is discharged. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this application. Rule discharged.