SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN this particular case, during the relevant previous years for the assessment, years 1962-63, and 1963-64 and 1964-65, the petitioner-company received diverse sums on account of compensation for the acquisition of plots of agricultural lands comprised within the petitioner's tea estate. In the returns filed under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1966-66, the petitioner duly disclosed the receipt of such sums and in the course of the assessment proceedings for the said year before respondent No. 1, the Income-tax Officer, F-Ward, Companies District II, Calcutta, the said petitioner by a letter dated October 21, 1967, duly furnished the primary and relevant materials fully and truly in relation to the said land and the said amount and furnished all the relevant materials, information and explanations. During the accounting year ended December 31, 1966, the petitioner received a further sum towards compensation in respect of the said land acquired by the Government of Assam in 1961. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court of Assam and Nagaland for proper valuation of such land. The Government of Assam also preferred an appeal against the enhancement of the valuation of the land passed by the District Judge concerned. Both the said appeals are still pending. The petitioner claims to have shown in its balance-sheet as on December 31, 1966, receipt of the said second total amount of compensation of Rs. 7,85,620 and also that the directors of the petitioner-company, in their report for the said accounting year, had duly made a note of reference due to such sum and of the said appeal. ( 2 ) STATING all the above facts in detail, the writ petitioners have come to this court on the ground that, respondent No. 1, Income-tax Officer, has no reason to believe that any income of the petitioner for the said accounting year 1967-68 escaped assessment. It is further alleged that there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which respondent No. 1 could entertain any belief as required by Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The alleged belief as stated in the said impugned notice is a mere pretence and does not exist. It is further alleged that there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which respondent No. 1 could entertain any belief as required by Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The alleged belief as stated in the said impugned notice is a mere pretence and does not exist. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that there was no material on the basis of which respondent No. 2 could be satisfied about the issue of the said purported notice under Section 148 of the said Act. The said purported satisfaction of respondent No. 2 is also a mere pretence and does not exist. Further, the proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act have been initiated solely with a view to reconsider and/or revise the decisions made at the time of the original assessment and the said purported proceedings have not been legitimately done and are with a view to conducting a fishing and roving investigation contrary to law. ( 3 ) THE writ petition and the rule are contested by the income-tax authorities by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated that the Government of Assam acquired 47 bighas, 17 bighas and 1,885 bighas of land of the assessee-campany in 1961 and the assessee-company received in the calendar years 1961, 1962 and 1963 sums of Rs. 37,043, Rs. 15,201 and Rs. 4,44,474, respectively, as compensation for the acquisition of the lands corresponding to the previous years 1961, 1962 and 1963, in the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The lands totalling 1,885 bighas were acquired by the Assam Government for its Fertilizer Corporation and Namrup Electrical Division. It was submitted by the assessee that the entire land acquired by the Government was agricultural and, as such, the question of capital gains did not arise. Further, as the assessee is a company dealing in tea having agricultural land, the submissions of the assessee were then accepted. It is also disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition that after completion of the said original assessment for the said assessment years, the Income-tax Officer started investigation as to whether the company held so much agricultural land in addition to tea gardens and made a reference to the Assam Government and to the Income-tax Officer, Dibrugarh. It is also disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition that after completion of the said original assessment for the said assessment years, the Income-tax Officer started investigation as to whether the company held so much agricultural land in addition to tea gardens and made a reference to the Assam Government and to the Income-tax Officer, Dibrugarh. The Income-tax Officer, "a" Ward, Dibrugarh, caused an extensive enquiry by his Inspector who submitted an extensive report and on the basis thereof, 5/8ths of the total land acquired by the Government from the petitioner was found to be non-agricultural. Accordingly, for the assessment year 1962-63, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessing the capital gains arising out of the said 5/8ths portion of the total land of 1,885 bighas acquired by the Government as stated hereinbefore. It is also stated that the Fertilizer Corporation of India purchased 307 bighas 2 kathas and 6 chattaks of land for Rs. 2,75,595 from the petitioner-company. Receipt of the said sum was also shown credited in the accounts of the calendar year 1964 (relevant for the assessment year 1965-36 ). Rs. 2,30,595 out of the said sum represents the cost of land at Rs. 750 per bigha and Rs. 45,000 represents the amount of compensation for bamboos, trees, etc. The assessment for the assessment year in which the said sale deed for the said land was executed was reopened under Section 147 (a) of the said Act Thereafter, the assessee-company sold further land to the Fertilizer Corporation of India and it was considered that the assessee-company could not have so much agricultural land. In order to clarify whether all the land was agricultural or not, a reference was made to the Law Officer of the Fertilizer Corporation of India on June 27, 1973, by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Dibrugarh, as regards the nature of the land involved in the sale of 307 bighas 2 kathas and 6 chattaks of land for Rs. 2,75,595. The Law Officer, in his turn, by letter dated July 10, 1973, informed that the above tea garden comprised land of mixed description and a part of the said land was fit for cultivation but the rest was arid land. ( 4 ) RECORDS were produced before this court at the time of hearing. Mr. 2,75,595. The Law Officer, in his turn, by letter dated July 10, 1973, informed that the above tea garden comprised land of mixed description and a part of the said land was fit for cultivation but the rest was arid land. ( 4 ) RECORDS were produced before this court at the time of hearing. Mr. Bajoria, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, submitted that certain lands were acquired in the relevant previous years and the compensation for acquisition of the said land was determined by the Collector. The petitioners challenged the award of the Collector and claimed higher compensation. During the previous year for the assessment year 1967-68, the subject-matter of this writ petition, the District Judge enhanced the compensation determined by the Collector and directed payment of interest on such enhanced compensation. Against that, the State Government and also the writ petitioners preferred appeals. The writ petitioners claimed compensation higher than what was awarded by the District Judge whereas the State Government contended that the District Judge should not have at all enhanced the compensation. While the appeals were pending before the Assam High Court, the writ petitioners, against the execution of a bond charging its immovable properties, received a sum of Rs. 7,85,620, being the amount of enhanced compensation and the interest thereon being Rs. 1,25,756 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 6,59,864. Mr. Bajoria, learned advocate for the writ petitioners, further stated that the receipt of the said sum of Rs. 7,85,620 was duly disclosed in the balance-sheet of the petitioner as on December 31, 1966. In the directors' report of the petitioner for the said year ending December 31, 1966, mention was made about the receipt of the said Rs. 7,85,620 and that appeals had been preferred both by the State Government and by the writ petitioner and that hence the receipt was treated as such. Along with the return filed for the said assessment year 1967--68, the said balance-sheet and the directors' report were annexed. Further, in Part II which relates to the claims of the assessee that sums are not taxable, the petitioner-company stated about the receipt of the said compensation and that it was pending final settlement, and it was also mentioned that the said sum of Rs. 7,85,620 was not liable to capital gains tax or income-tax. ( 5 ) MR. Further, in Part II which relates to the claims of the assessee that sums are not taxable, the petitioner-company stated about the receipt of the said compensation and that it was pending final settlement, and it was also mentioned that the said sum of Rs. 7,85,620 was not liable to capital gains tax or income-tax. ( 5 ) MR. Pal, learned advocate for the respondents-authorities, has produced the relevant records to indicate clearly that there is no dispute as to the submissions on behalf of the petitioner of disclosing the said sum of Rs. 7,85,620 in the balance-sheet, directors' report and in the returns. ( 6 ) MR. Bajoria, learned advocate for the petitioner, has strongly pointed out that it is well-settled that before any proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act can be initiated, two conditions must be fulfilled. Section 147 runs as follows : "147. If- (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under Section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in Clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that 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 or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowances, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ( 7 ) HAVING heard Mr. Bajoria, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Pal, for the income-tax authorities/respondents, respectively, this court finds that in the case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, it has been held that it would appear from a perusal of the provisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that two conditions have to be satisfied before an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the said Act in respect of an assessment beyond the period of four years, but within a period of eight years of the relevant year. Further, the learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the proceedings initiated in the instant case under Section 148 of the Act are without jurisdiction illegal and in view of the conditions imposed in Section 147 of the said Act. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted in the present case that there is no suppression or concealment on the part of the petitioner and that it has properly disclosed everything. ( 8 ) ATTENTION of the court has been drawn to another reported decision in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. v. ITO, which was decided by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, who, while presiding over a Bench of this hon'ble court, held that the facts disclosed in the directors' report and the profit and loss account are to be deemed to be full disclosure of the relevant facts. For this decision, the hon'ble judge relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. K. Basu, as his Lordship then was, being Matter No. 53 of 1967 (Calcutta Chromotype Private Ltd. v. ITO (unreported)), which decision was later on confirmed by a Division Bench decision in ITO v. Calcutta Chromotype Private Ltd. , In the said decision, it was held that the obligation of the assessee is to disclose the preliminary or primary facts, and not beyond that and it is for the Income-tax Officer to make further investigation if he so likes. If the return is not acceptable, then it is for the Income-tax Officer to investigate the matter and take a decision. The aforesaid well-settled principles would be evident from several decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court like Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO, CIT v. Hemchandra Kar, CIT v. Bhanji Lavji, and CIT v. Rurlop Dealers Ltd. , etc. It is held in such cases that if the Income-tax Officer has all the material facts before him when he makes the original assessment, he cannot later on take recourse to Section 147 (a) of the Act to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight. ( 9 ) ANOTHER dimension of the case has been brought to the notice of this court by Mr. Bajoria, learned advocate for the petitioner, as regards the appeals pending before the Assam High Court with regard to the amount of compensation and interest thereon. ( 9 ) ANOTHER dimension of the case has been brought to the notice of this court by Mr. Bajoria, learned advocate for the petitioner, as regards the appeals pending before the Assam High Court with regard to the amount of compensation and interest thereon. In this regard, the attention of the court has been drawn to the case, Lokendrasingh v. ITO, [1981] 128 ITR 450, wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in similar circumstances as this one, quashed the reassessment proceedings, Therein also, the assessee had received an additional amount of compensation and that was mentioned in its return claiming such sum as not taxable. Later, proceedings for reassessment were initiated, but were quashed following the Supreme Court decision reported in Gemini Leather Stores' case reported in [1975] 100 ITR 1 and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. , In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. , [1977] 308 ITR 380 (Cal), at page 394, it was held that with regard to the enhanced amount which was subsequently fixed by the order of the arbitrator, the said amount cannot be said to be a determinate one as the said amount is now pending appeal in the High Court. The enhanced amount may be affirmed, may be reduced or the entire enhanced amount may be disallowed by the High Court. Hence, the claim for the said further amount is in jeopardy and the right of the assessee to receive further amounts is also unsettled. Further, unless the question of payment of any enhanced compensation is decided and the amount of enhanced compensation becomes determinate and payable, the said amount cannot, according to the decision of the Division Bench of this hon'ble court, be stated to have accrued or arisen. ( 10 ) MR. Pal, learned advocate for the respondents/authorities, has however drawn the attention of this court to the decision reported in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, wherefrom it will appear that at page 201 of the said report, it was held that there is no duty on the part of the assessee other than making a full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. Ltd. v. ITO, wherefrom it will appear that at page 201 of the said report, it was held that there is no duty on the part of the assessee other than making a full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. Further, 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 and it is meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences, whether of facts or law, the assessing authority should draw from the primary facts. Mr. Pal, learned advocate, has referred to another decision in S. Narayanappa v. CIT, wherein it has been held that "reason to believe" in Section 34 does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the belief must be held in good faith ; it cannot merely be a pretence. It was also held that proceedings for assessment/reassessment under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Act start with the issue of a notice and it is only after its service that the assessee concerned becomes a party to such proceedings. Moreover, satisfaction on the part of the Officer is open to challenge in court. ( 11 ) IN view of the several decisions discussed above and the principles of law enunciated therein, it appears clearly that the petitioner, in the present case, has fully and truly disclosed all the relevant facts for the purpose of assessment for the relevant year. There is no escapement either and the reasons assigned by the income-tax authorities to issue the impugned notices and the purported proceedings thereto suffer from legal infirmities and the conditions necessary for issuance of such notices were not there and the issuance of such notices is therefore found to be unwarranted in law and uncalled for. Once it is found that there is no lawful basis to issue the impugned notices, this court finds no bar or impediment to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute without costs. ( 13 ) LET a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to cancel the purported notice dated March 29, 1976, for the assessment year 1967-68 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act and all proceedings thereto. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute without costs. ( 13 ) LET a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to cancel the purported notice dated March 29, 1976, for the assessment year 1967-68 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act and all proceedings thereto. ( 14 ) THERE will be stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks from date, as prayed for. Interim order already passed at the issuance of the rule will continue in the meantime.