Judgment :- 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reassessments cannot be legally sustained?" 2. These five references are connected. All of them relate to the assessment year 1971-72. The respondents (assessees) are the legal heirs of one A.P. Menon, who died in 1957. AP. Menon died, leaving behind two brothers (Kannankutty Menon and Echukutty Menon) and two sisters (Ambika R.Menon, Devaki Thampuran). Another sister, Ammalukutty Amma, pre-deceased AP. Menon. The property belonging to AP. Menon were acquired by the Government of Kerala under the Land Acquisition Act. A compensation of Rs. 3,39,473/- was awarded therein. The capital gains arising out of the said acquisition was assessed in the hands of the aforesaid five legal heirs for the assessment year 1971-72. Kannankutty Menon, one of the brothers, died, leaving behind his son Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K Menon (daughter). Devaky Thampuran was represented by Achuthankutty Menon. The original assessments against Devaky Thampuran (represented by Achuthankutty Menon), Echukutty Menon and Ambika R.Menon were completed on 8-9-1972. The assessment against Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K.Menon (legal heirs of Kannankutty Menon - one of the brothers) was made on 29-3-1974. The assessments of Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon were confirmed in the appeals. The assessments made against Achuthankutty Menon, Echukutty Menon and Ambika R. Menon were cancelled in the appeals. Echukutty Menon filed a return on 25-9-1971 with a covering letter. Kannankutty Menon's heirs - Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon - filed return on 10-1-1971. Achuthankutty Menon (for Devaky Thampuran) and Ambika R. Menon filed returns on 6-10-1971. It is on these returns the assessments were completed on 8-9-1972. The original assessments in the case of Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon were completed on 29-3-1974. It appears that subsequent thereto, there was some discussion between the Advocate of one of the legal heirs and the Income-tax. Officer on 24-2-1975. A communication was also sent to the Income-tax Officer. The above discussion and the letter disclosed, that as against the 1/5th share claimed for each one of the legal heirs- Kannankutty Menon, Echukutty Menon, Ambika R. Menon, Devaki Thampuran and Ammalukutty Amma, - since Ammalukutty Amma predeceased AP. Officer on 24-2-1975. A communication was also sent to the Income-tax Officer. The above discussion and the letter disclosed, that as against the 1/5th share claimed for each one of the legal heirs- Kannankutty Menon, Echukutty Menon, Ambika R. Menon, Devaki Thampuran and Ammalukutty Amma, - since Ammalukutty Amma predeceased AP. Menon, the surviving heirs would get 1/4th share each, in the estate. On coming to know of this, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under S.147(b) of the Income-tax Act. He issued notices on 31-3-1975 to Devaki Thampuran (represented by Achuthankutty Menon), Echukutty Menon and Ambika R.Menon. The notices were served on them on 11-4-1975. The said three persons filed returns. It should be noticed that the Income Tax Officer did not issue any notice to Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon - the legal heirs of Kannankutty Menon, in whom one fourth of the estate of AP. Menon vested. In pursuance to the returns filed by Devaki Thampuran, Ambika R. Menon and Echukutty Menon, no further action was taken. Nearly three years thereafter, on noticing that the legal heirs are entitled to more shares, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to all the five persons (the legal heirs of A.P. Menon under) S.147(a) of the Income-tax Act. He stated that the legal heirs (Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon) are together entitled to 1/4th share, Echukutty Menon entitled to 1/4th share, so also Ambika R. Menon and Devaki Thampuran are each entitled to 1/4th share,and since the original assessments were on the basis that the heirs are entitled to 1/5th share in the estate, the assessments require revision. Fresh returns were filed on 9-3-1979. The reassessments were effected on 24-3-1979. One of the grounds taken up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as also before the Appellate Tribunal, was that the reassessments are illegal and unsustainable. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the said plea. Thereafter on motion by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the question of law, formulated hereinabove, for the decision of this court. 3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. M.R.K. Menon, as also counsel for the assessee Mr. CM. Devan. Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Menon vehemently contended that Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon, as also the other legal heirs, did not state the primary facts truly and fully at the time of original assessments. 3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. M.R.K. Menon, as also counsel for the assessee Mr. CM. Devan. Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Menon vehemently contended that Krishnankutty Menon and Kamalam K. Menon, as also the other legal heirs, did not state the primary facts truly and fully at the time of original assessments. On the other hand, it was represented before the Income Tax Officer that the heirs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the estate, and on that basis the assessments were made originally on 8-9-1972 and 29-3-1974. It was only later, when the matter was discussed with the Income-Tax Officer by one of the legal heirs and his Advocate on 24-2-1975, it came to light that Ammalukutty Amma predeceased AP. Menon, that her children were excluded from inheriting her assets, and that the estates devolved on the other co-sharers entitling them to 1/4th share each in the estate. Since there was no full and true disclosure of primary facts, necessary for the assessments, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal should have held that the reassessments effected under S.147(a) of the Income-tax Act are valid and proper. It was further vehemently contended that the view of the Appellate Tribunal is that the re-assessments against Devaki Thampuran, Ambika R. Menon and Echukutty Menon are unauthorised, since the proceedings initiated under S.147(b) by notice dated 31-3-1975, were never finalised and while the said matter was pending, the Income-tax Officer was incompetent to issue the notice to all the assessees under S.147(a) of the Income-Tax Act, dated 21-12-1978. Counsel for the assessee sought to sustain the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessments are illegal and unsustainable. It is common ground that the Income Tax Officer issued notices under S.147(b) of the Income-Tax Act to Ambika R. Menon, Devaki Thampuran and Echukutty Menon on 31-3-1975. The notice was served on 11-4-1975. Under S.153(2) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act the assessments, based on this notice, should have been completed on or before 11-4-1976. It was not so done. What is more, the assessment was kept pending. No final orders were passed. The notice was served on 11-4-1975. Under S.153(2) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act the assessments, based on this notice, should have been completed on or before 11-4-1976. It was not so done. What is more, the assessment was kept pending. No final orders were passed. Apart from the fact that the assessments, having made after 11-4-1976, are barred, a further notice was sent to all the legal heirs under S.147(a) of the Income-tax Act on 21-12-1978. On the day when such a notice was sent underS.147(a) of the Act, reassessment proceedings initiated under S.147(b) was pending. The second notice issued under S.1479(a), dated 21-12-1978, is incompetent and unauthorised. The Income-Tax Officer is not authorised to initiate successive reassessment proceedings when assessment proceedings are already pending. We are fortified in this view by the decision reported in Commercial Art Press v. Commissioner of Income-tax (115 ITR 876). On this short ground, the assessments are barred and unsustainable. 5. Even on the larger question, we are satisfied that in this case there was no failure on the part of the assessees to disclose truly and fully all primary facts. That A.P. Menon died in 1957, after the Hindu Succession Act, leaving behind Kannankutty Menon, Echukutty Menon, Ambika R. Menon, and Devaki Thampuran and that Ammalukutty Amma (one of the sisters) pre-deceased A.P. Menon, were brought to the notice of the Income-tax Officer, are seen from the letter addressed to the Income-tax Officer. The letter is dated 25th of September 1971. This was so done even at the time of original assessment The duty of the assessee is only to disclose truly and fully all primary and material facts necessary for the assessment of that year. That was complied with in this case. It is not for the assessee to disclose what inference of fact or law should be drawn from those primary facts. If the Income-tax Officer failed to inform himself about the true position in law, that cannot be made a ground to reopen the assessment under S.147(a) of the Income Tax Act. The matter is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 582) at p.588 and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (106 ITR 1). The matter is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji (79 ITR 582) at p.588 and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (106 ITR 1). In this perspective, we also hold that the assessees made a full and true disclosure of all primary and material facts and hence the reassessment proceedings initiated under S.141 (a) of the Income-tax Act are totally unauthorised and illegal. 6. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.