A. Raghuvir, C. J. — The subject in this group of fifteen writ petitions relates to two Hindu Undivided families, one is known as Gulabrai Hanumanbux with Karta Shri Laxmi Prasad-the other Keshoram Radheshyam with Karta Keshoram Agarwalla. The two joint families together purchased in 1965 a plot of land measuring 14 K. 14 L. 28 Ch. at 28C, Rowland Road at Calcutta for Rs. 1,69,500/-. Between the calendar years 1968-71 the two together constructed a three storeyed building. The two families own the land and the building in equal moieties. According to them in 1966-67 they spent Rs. 5139. 04 before the construction commenced. In the calendar year 1968-69 they spent Rs. 1,07. 425, 21, 1969-70-Rs. 70, 142. 09, 1070-71 -Rs. 1,03,019. 11, 1971-72-Rs. 61,764. 65, 1972-73-Rs. 19,372.56. Thus a total sum of Rs. 3,66,862. 66 P. was spent over the construction of the building. The amounts expended were the subject of Income-tax assessments and assessments under the Wealth Tax Act of 1957. In the assessments the valuation date was March 31, 1971. Long after the assessments were concluded the Special Survey Squad at Calcutta appears to have informed the Revenue that the building in the assessments was under-valued. Thereafter the Revenue obtained a report from the District Valuation Officer. Based upon the report of the District Valuation Officer fifteen notices were served on the assessees to reopen the assessment orders. The notices thus served on the assessees are assailed in the fifteen writ petitions. The H. U. F. of Gulabrai the Income-tax assessment orders for 1969-70, 1971-72 and 1972-73 are sought to be re-opened. The H. y. F. of Keshoram Redheshyam the Income-tax assessment orders for 1969-70, 1971-72 and 1972-73 are sought to be re-opened in these cases. Similarly in the case of Wealth-tax assessment of Keshoram Radheshyam assessment years of 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 are sought to be re-opened. (It is not shown as to why 1975-76 of Gulabrai's assessment in the wealth tax is not sought to be re-opened). Now we may set out the details of the assessments. Similarly in the case of Wealth-tax assessment of Keshoram Radheshyam assessment years of 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 are sought to be re-opened. (It is not shown as to why 1975-76 of Gulabrai's assessment in the wealth tax is not sought to be re-opened). Now we may set out the details of the assessments. By a notice on March 22, 1980 the Income-tax assessment for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 in respect of M/S. Gulabrai are sought to be re-opened (the assessment orders in these cases were passed on December 31,1971 and March 16, 1974 respectively, the I. T. O recorded the reasons for re-opening on February 4, 1980, the sanction of the Commissioner was sought for and it is averred the sanction has been received on February 28, 1980 by a telegram). By a notice on April 9, 1980 the Income-tax assessment year 1969-70 in respect of Gulabrai is sought to be re-opened (the assess­ment order in this case was passed on December 31, 1971, the I. T. O. recorded the reasons for re-opening on February 4, 1980, the sanction of the Commissioner was sought for and it is averred the sanction has been received on March 31. 1980). By a notice on April 9, 1980 the Income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1969-70 in respect of Keshoram Radheshyam is sought to be re-opened, (the assessment order in this case was passed on December 13, 1971. the I. T. O. recorded the reasons for re-opening on February 4, 1980, the sanction of the Commissioner was sought for and it is averred the sanction has been received on March 31, 1980). By a notice on March 22, 1980 the Income-tax assessment for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 in respect of Keshoram Radhehyam are sought to be re-opened (the assessment order in these cases were passed on December 18, 1971, the I. T. O. recorded the reasons for re-opening on February 4, 1980, the sanction of the Commissioner was sought for and it is averred the sanction has been received on February 28, 1980 by a telegram). The Wealth-tax assessment in respect of Gulabrai for the assessment year 1971-72, assessment order was passed on May 24, 1972, reasons were recorded on February 29, 1980 and notice was issued on February 29, 1980. As respects assessment year 1972-73 the order is dated November 5. The Wealth-tax assessment in respect of Gulabrai for the assessment year 1971-72, assessment order was passed on May 24, 1972, reasons were recorded on February 29, 1980 and notice was issued on February 29, 1980. As respects assessment year 1972-73 the order is dated November 5. 1973, notice was issued on March 13, 1981 and for the assessment year 1973-74 assessment order is November 5, 1973, reasons are recorded on May 27. 1981 and as regards assessment year 1974-75, assessment order is March 19, 1975, reasons are recorded on May 27, 1981 and notice was issued on May 27, J981. The Wealth-tax assessment of Keshoram Radheshyam for the assessment year 1971-72 the assessment order is dated December 23, 1971, reasons are recorded on February 29, 1980 and notice was issued on March 22, 1980. As respects assessment year 1972-73, order was passed on November 5, 1973, reasons were recorded on March 13, 1981 and notice was issued on March 13, 1981. As respects assessment year 1973-74, the assessment order is dated November 5, 1973, reasons are recorded on May 27, 1981 and notice was issued on May 27, 1981. As respects assessment year 1974-75, assess­ment order is dated July 24, 1975, reasons are recorded on May 27, 1981 and notice was issued on May 27, 1981. As respects assess­ment year 1975-76 assessment order is dated November 5, 1975, reasons are recorded on May 27, 1981 and notice was issued on May 27, 1981. It is seen in the course of all these proceedings the assessees submitted returns and relevant to the valuation of the building as on March 31, 1971 the authorised Valuation Officer's report dated October 28, 1972 was submitted in that the plinth area of the three storeyed building was shown 13, 319 sq. ft., garage and mazzanine-778- sq. ft., left room area 878 sq. ft. and according to him the land value is Rs. 2,40,000/-, the building Rs. 4,87,000/-the total was Rs. 7,27,000/-. We have earlier referred to the report of the Special Survey Squad whereupon the Revenue referred the issue of valuation to the District Valuation Officer who in his report stated the basement constructed was for erecting a building of 9 storeyed- The value is Rs. 7, 55, 100/-. The 3 storeyed basement is 14, 081 sq. ft. (Aut­horised Valuation Officer states this 13, 319 sq ft.) the garage and mezzanine is 778 sq.ft. 7, 55, 100/-. The 3 storeyed basement is 14, 081 sq. ft. (Aut­horised Valuation Officer states this 13, 319 sq ft.) the garage and mezzanine is 778 sq.ft. (the Authorised Valuation Officer states 780 sq.ft), left room area 878 sq.ft. (the Authorised Valuation Officer states it is 800 sq.ft.), verandah ground floor is 515 sq.ft., back verandah ground floor is 366 sq. ft., foundation extra is 3274 sq. ft., marble flooring & lining 4000 sq.ft. @ 7/-Rs. 28.COO/-, glazed title lining 4500 sq.ft. @ Rs. 4.00-Rs. 5,2. O/-, compound wall 405 Rft. @ 12/-Rs. 4,860/-, C. C. Pavement 2600 sq.ft. @ -Rs. 2.50-Rs. 6.500/-, compound gate 2 Nos.-Rs. 2,000/-,structure near entrance gate-Rs. 3.000/-, under ground & overhead reservoir, tubewells, pumps etc.-Rs. 15.000/-. When notices were served one of the assessees protested on August 18, 1972 and repeated the protest on April 28, 1980 stating the assessee be informed on May 13, 1980 that the assessee is not entitled to be informed the basis for initiation of the proceeding at that stage. It is in these circumstances the assessees approached this Court and assail the notices. The two assessees seek to quash the notices and the entire proceedings in this Court. In this group of cases the first question that was debated at great length was whether or not the Revenue should inform the reasons for re-opening assessment to the assessee. The subject was referred in the correspondence between the assessee and the Revenue as stated earlier. The Revenue maintains a decision of the Supreme Court to which we would advert to immediately held the Revenue need not set out their reasons for re-opening the assessment. In the debate what was suggested was that after notices are served on the assessee in the event of the assessee to approach the Court under Article 226 the reasons will be disclosed in the Court. At one point of time the Revenue threatened to claim privilege though it was not pressed later. Thereafter having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court the Revenue argued the assessee need not be informed of the reasons at the notice stage of the proceedings. In our view the better course of procedure for the Revenue is to inform the assessee the grounds on which the assessments are sought to be re-opened. Thereafter having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court the Revenue argued the assessee need not be informed of the reasons at the notice stage of the proceedings. In our view the better course of procedure for the Revenue is to inform the assessee the grounds on which the assessments are sought to be re-opened. The grounds if they are assailed in the Court of Article 226 the tenability or otherwise of the grounds will be adjudged in the Court. Adoption of this proceeding will result in an orderly procedure. In this regard the decision of the Madras High Court in AIR 1954 Madras 872, Presidency Talkies Ltd. vs. First Addl. Income-tax Officer was referred to by the Revenue where it is held grounds need not be informed to the assessee at that stage of the proceedings. That Court observed : "The requirement regarding the communication of the reasons to the Commissioner is, in our opinion, intended to safeguard the interest of the assessee against any hasty action on the part of the Income-tax Officer under S. 34 or an action without any justification. It is-not intended by the proviso that the reason should be comm­unicated to the assessee. The satisfaction mentioned is the satisfaction of the Commissioner, and the adequacy of the reasons is not a matter for consideration of the Court, and it is not open to the assessee to agitate the question, that the reasons were inadequate to sanction the initiation of the proceedings under S. 34 by the Commissioner." The decision-of the Madras High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 523 , S. Narayanappa vs. Commissio­ner of Income-tax and the issue was dealt in the following manner : -"The Scheme of S. 34 of the Act is that, if the conditions of the main section are satisfied a notice has to be issued to the assessee _ containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of S. 22. But before issuing the notice, the proviso requires that the officer should record his reasons for initiating action under S. 34 and obtain the sanction of the Commissioner who must be satisfied that the action under S. 34 was justified. But before issuing the notice, the proviso requires that the officer should record his reasons for initiating action under S. 34 and obtain the sanction of the Commissioner who must be satisfied that the action under S. 34 was justified. There is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section laying down as a condition for the initiation of the proceedings that the reasons which induced the Commissioner to accord sanction to proceed under S. 34 must also be communicated to the assessee." (para 4). We have expressed our opinion what would be a better and orderly procedure. We see the subject at issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court directly. Therefore we leave the question with our suggestion. The principal question argued in this group of cases is whether the Revenue is entitled to re-open the assessment. In our decision on the facts of the case the Revenue is not entitled to re-open the two sets of assessment. The reasons are as under : The two assessees disclosed to the Revenue in the assessment when the land was purchased, how much they paid towards consideration, what type of basement was raised? What is the plinth area of the floors? How many floors were constructed ? What material was used ? The Authorised Valuer's report was submitted. All the evidence was tendered. The Revenue accepted the valuation after enquiry and assessments were concluded. 11 was therefore not open at the instance of a Special Survey Squad's complaint or thereafter at the report of the District Valuation Officer to re-open the concluded issue. This aspect is convered by the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court' and it is not necessary to cover all of them in the instant case. One of us (Chief Justice) considered the relevant cases in (1988) 2 GLR 75, M/S Abdul Rab Abdul Salam vs. ITO and what is stated in that case covers the issue in the instant cases, In "that case it is held : "(8) The principle in such cases is culled out from the words in clause (a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The words are whether assessee disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assess­ment. Once the assessee does that what inferences are to be drawn is in the hands of the Income-'ax Officer. The words are whether assessee disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assess­ment. Once the assessee does that what inferences are to be drawn is in the hands of the Income-'ax Officer. It is open for the Income-tax Officer not to act on the representation of the assessee, call for addi -tional information or further investigate Facts and pass the assess­ment order. In doing so he may totally reject the case of the assessee or partially accept the representation of the assessee, or fully agree with the case of the assessee. Once the assessment order is finalised or issues in the inquiry are settled the s me issues cannot be reopened later stating the ITO has discovered the truth later. The conclusion arrived earlier was discovered to be wrong or the assessee got away with the false representation. The ITO can reopen only if he records true facts were not disclosed (like true account books were not filed as in this case). (9) These decisions of the Supreme Court are cited and in that three cases the above principle is explained. The first one is 41 ITR 191 (Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer) and in that case it was explained "chare is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the Income-tax Officer might have discovered... which might have been discovered by the assessing authority if he had pursued investigation on the basis of what has been disclosed. There was no further duty on the assessee it was emphasised what inferences are to be drawn or for what matter what proper inferences to be drawn. Again in 71 ITR 609 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd,) emphasis was laid on words 'omission or failure' how it is to be considered is discussed. The discussion shows the duty postu­lated by the assessee is only to the extent to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment. What facts are material and what are not necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. Where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than the one which he has reached' was juxtaposed to show the assessee was under no obligation to inform the Income-tax Officer which inference may be raised against him. Where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than the one which he has reached' was juxtaposed to show the assessee was under no obligation to inform the Income-tax Officer which inference may be raised against him. The above cited two cases were relied in the third case 118 ITR 1 (Income-tax Officer I-ward, Hundi Circle, Calcutta vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd). In that case what can be done by the ITO was further explained. What is not the duty of the assessee in the discussion of the case is explained with reference to the contention raised in that case 'the asssssee contended that it has produced all the relevant materials and documents necessary for completing the assessment and it was uader no obligation to inform the ITO about the true nature of the tra­nsaction and there was accordingly no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly and material facts necessary for its assessment..' The assessee discharged his obligation so it was held when he tenders books of account and evidence from which material facts could be discovered. It was for the ITO to decide whether the documents produced by the assessea were genuine or false. All the aspects considered in the two earlier cases were explained and followed. (10) Thus once assessee diseased material facts necessary and assessment is finalised later fora different conclusion on the same fact the assessments cannot be reopened. If this was not the law on Privy Council case from Australia held 'litigation will never end.' The assessee can never rest in peace. The revenue can always reopen and such a power to reopen the orders: can be wielded to harass the assessee Litigation can never be concluded finally, AH assessment can be reopened with a view to 'obtain another judgment upon a different assessment of fact'. The Privy Council further held 'parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the court of the legal result either of the construction of the document or the weight of certain circumstances. If these were permitted litigation would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted'. If these were permitted litigation would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted'. These aspects were applied by one of us (Raghuvir J,) in 114 ITR 404 in Sripur Paper Mills Ltd. vs. ITO. The above passage extracted 4s found I in : Privy Council case, , Hystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation, 1926 AC 155.* On the facts in the instant cases the valuation of the building at on the date March 31, 1971 was the subject of inquiry before assessments were concluded. The Authorised Valuer's report was considered as to the valuation. The Revenue could have rejected the evidence proffered by the assessees including the valuation submitted by the assessee. The facts in the case show valuation by the Authorised Officer was accepted and the evidence tendered was also accepted. The account books offered by the assessee as evidence could have been rejected. The revenue instead accepted the accounts. The assessments were thus concluded. Later after the assessment orders it is not open for the Revenue to contend the assessment assessees got away with under valuation of the building in question. The ratio of the decision culled out in the case apply on all fours on the facts of the case. We hold the Revenue cannot change opinion and reopen the assessments. The notices served in this group of fifteen cases for the aforesaid reasons are hereby quashed. The assessees also raised the question as to limitation but the plea of limitation does not survive the above decision therefore need not be dealt in detail. For the aforesaid reasons the group of fifteen writ petitions are allowed. No Costs. R. K. Manisana, J. — I agree.