A. Raghuvir, C. J.: - The assessee in this reference is a partnership firm run under the name and style of M/S. Sharma and Siddhanta. The assessment orders of the firm for the year 1962-63 was reopened the reopening order was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. He held : "There was thus no omission on the part of the appellant to disclose material facts originally for its assessments. The later informations which came into the possession of the I. T. O. regarding confessions of the hundiwallas entitled to him to aa action U|S 147 (b) and not U/S 147(a)". The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was reversed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in case of Lakhmini Mewal Das v. Income-lax officer (84 ITS 469) and confirmed the order of the ITO and reveised the order in eppeal in that it is held Considering the facts for assessment year 1962-63 we find that action under Section 147 (a) has been taken on the ground that the assessees had disclosed in his books that it bad taken certain loans from the various parties. These loans were accepted as genuine. Subsequently the Income tax Officer found that these loans were bogus and these parties ware acting merely as name tenders. He therefore, held that these amounts represented assessee's undisclosed income and believed that this amount had escaped assessmeat by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts of the assessment. The source of receipt of the amounts appearing as credits in the books of the assessee is a material fact for the assessment and if the assessee fails to make a full and the disclosure about the same provisions of Section 147(a) would be applicable. The evidence mentioned by Income-tax Officer in his reasons for taking action under Section 148 is sufficient for the Income tax Officer to come to the prima facie conclusion that the loan transactions appearing in the books of the assessee were not genuine transactions. The Income-tax Officer has categorically recorded that he had reason to believe that these amounts represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer has categorically recorded that he had reason to believe that these amounts represented undisclosed income of the assessee. ID the reasons recorded of the order sheet he has also mentioned that these amounts escaped assessment by reason of assessed failure to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment". 4. The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The question is : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relating to the assessment year 1962-63 and in restoring the appeal to his file for disposal of the same on merits on the ground that the Income tax Officer was justified in taking action under Section 147(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ?" 5. The decision of the Calcutta High Court 84 ITR 469 was considered by a larger Beach of the same High Court. On appeal the above decision was set aside (99 I. T. R. 296). The Supreme Court accepted the majority view in 99 I. T. R. 296. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in 103 I. T. R. 436. 6. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the facts and circumstances of the case properly and applied ratio of the decision of this Court reported in 77 I. T. R. 798. Therefore we do not see any vice in the decision of the Appellate Asstt, Commissioner. 7. We, therefore, answer the above question in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.