ORDER In these four matters the department seeks to reopen assessment of the petitioner for four assessment years, i.e., the years 1975-76 to 1978-79. 2. The assessments in respect of these years are complete. For the year 1978-79, it might be pertinent to mention, that the assessment was made on the 17th October, 1979. 3. By a common set of reasons the department sought to justify the reopening of assessment of these assessment years. These reasons have been set out in the Affidavit-in-Opposition of Asok Kumar Golda as well as have been separately forwarded to the assessee and have been annexed by the assessee in the writ application. 4. Due sanction is also said to have been taken under s. 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the Commissioner. The original sanction in this regard was produced in Court and the department also produced the relevant authorisation of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to issue the notice of reopening in place and stead of the Income Tax Officer. No bearing was given prior to the sanction for issue of notice under s. 151 but about this I shall make my comments only at the end of this judgment. 5. The reasons for reopening are basically this that the assessee tendered a revised valuation report dated March 1981 and that the department also obtained departmental valuation report of 1983. The petitioner is a construction company with a mercantile system of accounting. It appeared from these valuation reports to the respondent that income had escaped assessment and therefore, notices of reopening were issued. 6. Section 147 of the Act of 1961 in so far as the same concerns the present case is set out below :– “147. Income escaping assessment.– 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 s. 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, 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 he may, subject to the provisions of ss. 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in ss. 148 to 159 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 7. The other relevant sections being ss. 148 and 151 are also set out below :– “148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment – (1) – Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under s. 147, the Income-tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements -which may be included in a notice under sub-so (2) of s. 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. 151. Sanction for issue of notice – (1) No notice shall be issued under s. 148 after the expiry of eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Board is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) No notice shall be issued under s. 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice” 9. It is not disputed that in each of these cases sub-s.2 of s. 151 would be applicable. 10. It is now well settled that the duty of the assessee is merely to bring and disclose before the relevant Officer all the relevant information in regard to the assessment The view to be taken thereupon must be the view of the assessing Officer himself and in that regard the assessee owes no duty of assistance. His duties cease with the bringing on record of all the relevant and complete material without any attempt to hide or suppress. Though the authorities are numerous and clear yet two cases were cited in this regard, being the cases of Calcutta Discount and Lakhmani Mewal Das respectively reported in Volume-41 (1961) ITR page-191 and Volume 103 (1976) ITR page 437. Though the authorities are numerous and clear yet two cases were cited in this regard, being the cases of Calcutta Discount and Lakhmani Mewal Das respectively reported in Volume-41 (1961) ITR page-191 and Volume 103 (1976) ITR page 437. These cases support the above proposition of law which was relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. In particular in the Calcutta Discount case the point arose whether share transactions were made for the purpose of reinvestment or for the purpose of earning some income. It was not the duty of the assessee to do anything but bring on record the facts relating to the share transaction. The view to be taken thereupon was to be taken by the Officer on the facts disclosed and if one particular view, was taken, reopening of assessment, thereafter, on the allegation of the assessee's default, would be incompetent because the assessee had not made any omission or suppression. 11. The words of s. 147 clearly indicate that if a disclosure full and true of all material facts necessary for assessment is made then and in that event there would be no jurisdiction to reopen assessment under 147(a) of the Income Tax Act. 12. The respondents would also be entitled to reopen assessment notwithstanding no omission or failure of the assessee under the provisions of 147(b) of the Act but that under s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, the time limit for the same is set at four years only. The said time having elapsed the enquiry would be whether the officers could come to a conclusion as to any lack of full or true disclosure of material facts on the part of the assessee. 13. The respondents have relied upon three authorities for the propositions that at the time of reopening of assessment some grounds should be there which are sufficient for a tentative formation of a reasonable belief as to escapement of assessment; that these grounds would be sufficient if some reasonable man, in some view of the matter could act thereupon. It has also been submitted that the jurisdiction to reopen is not taken away in case the Income Tax Officer could have found out by further and better probe the omission of the assessee to make full disclosure. It has also been submitted that the jurisdiction to reopen is not taken away in case the Income Tax Officer could have found out by further and better probe the omission of the assessee to make full disclosure. What grants jurisdiction is the omission of the assessee to disclose fully and not the degree of care taken by the Income Tax Officer al the time of assessment. These above propositions were sought to be supported by the cases of H.A. Nonji and Indo Aden Salt reported respectively in Volume 120(1979) ITR page 593 and Volume 159(1986) ITR 624. There is no dispute with these propositions. 14. The third case relied upon on behalf of the respondents was the case of Niranjan & Co. reported in Volume 159 (1986) ITR page 153. In this case the assessee had filed a revised return, but the assessment having been made already prior to the filing of the revised return the assessee contended that the assessment could not be reopened. That argument was dispelled and it was said that a revised return is material enough for reopening of assessment. In my opinion, a revised return stands on different footing altogether than a revised valuation report because a revised return is practically in the nature of what would be an admission made before a Court of law in the form of a subsequent affidavit. A revised valuation is a separate subsequent fact. 15. The nature of a valuation report is different and the appreciation thereof is vital for the solution of the problems raised in these matters. A valuation is an assessment of an expert. It will vary from expert to expert. It will also vary from time to time depending upon the cost of construction, cost of materials etc. In four sheets in the form of a chart, handed up by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, it has been mentioned that the valuer's report of 1981 submitted by the assessee was filed due to rise in the cost of construction and rise in the area of construction. 16. This brings us to the crux of the matter. In four sheets in the form of a chart, handed up by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, it has been mentioned that the valuer's report of 1981 submitted by the assessee was filed due to rise in the cost of construction and rise in the area of construction. 16. This brings us to the crux of the matter. In so far as the assessee’s revised valuation of 1981 is concerned nobody ever applied his mind as to whether the valuation therein was increased by reason of any suppression or omission earlier made on the part of the assessee, or whether the valuation changed because of other circumstances beyond the control of the assessee in any manner. One might read and reread the reasons for reopening of assessment but one would not cease to wonder in regard to the answer to the above central question. 17. The valuation made by the defendants stands on another footing. This is an act independently done on the part of the respondents. The assessee had nothing to do with it. By no stretch of imagination, can the assessee's omission or failure to disclose any fact be inferred from the departmental valuation, which came into being only in the year 1983 and not at any time earlier. Such a valuation might well found the case of an assessment, but such a valuation report cannot found or support a notice for reopening of assessment under 147(a) which has to be made relatable to some omission or default of the assessee and cannot be made relatable merely to some action taken anew on the part of the department. Otherwise every assessment made can be reopened on a statement that the department has, after the assessment, made certain independent enquiries which it could have made earlier also and that upon such an enquiry the assessment is thought to be reopenable. 18. Under those circumstances the existence of neither of these two valuation reports of 1981 and 1983 could, in any reasonable view of the matter, without further facts, if any, which have not been disclosed, lead to the conclusion that the earlier assessments were under-assessed by reason of any omission or failure to disclose on the part of the assessee. 19. This brings me to another point which is perhaps of first impression. 19. This brings me to another point which is perhaps of first impression. After a lapse of four years after assessment is complete a right accrued to the assessee not to be disturbed with reopening of assessment unless sanction therefor is taken from the Commissioner under s. 151. The Commissioner is to grant sanction on a resonable basis by application of mind as otherwise the grant of sanction might be liable to be set aside as a mechanical action or an action by an authority taken without due and proper application of mind. 20 It is nobody's case that the aforesaid non-application of mind or mechanical action on the part of the Commissioner has been proved by any records before the Court; but the point is that where the decision of the Commissioner is likely to affect the assessee and bring about some adverse civil consequence as against the assessee though not of the nature of penalty, then under the general law of the land the assessee has a right to be beard. 21. There is no provision in s. 151 which calls for a hearing to be given by the Commissioner to the assessee prior to the issuance of sanction. But it is settled law today that an omission of the rules of natural justice in a Statute should rather be filled in by an implication that the legislature intended the rules of natural justice to be obeyed rather than that the gap should be filled in by an opposite implication that adverse civil consequence should follow without observance of the rules of natural justice. 22. Indeed if an assessee, is beard after four years of completion of assessment prior to grant of sanction by the Commissioner the assessee might well be able to bring before the Commissioner materials which would prevent a reopening of assessment on the materials which have been placed by the Income-tax Officer unilaterally before' the Commissioner. Such a hearing would ensure the proper application of mind by the Commissioner and the giving of reasons for his sanction and this would rather aid the cause of justice than obstruct the same. Such a hearing would ensure the proper application of mind by the Commissioner and the giving of reasons for his sanction and this would rather aid the cause of justice than obstruct the same. No doubt revenue that is due to the authorities should be collected, but it is equally free from doubt that in the matter of such collection the citizens should be given their ordinary rights which they have under any special or general law of the land. 23. I quite see that the Commissioner did not even think of giving a hearing as the point is somewhat novel and it never occurred either to the Commissioner to issue a notice of hearing to the assessee or to the Income-tax Officers or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to issue such notice on his own to the assessee. The fact remains, however, that no bearing was given. If an order which should have been passed after some discussions or some hearing was passed without the same then the law must take its inevitable course and the action must be quashed as being in breach of the rules of natural justice. 24. In my opinion for the general reasons given above it is totally free from doubt that the Commissioner in according a sanction to a late reopening of assessment does an act which has some adverse civil consequence against the assessee and must, therefore, give a fair hearing to the assessee prior to the passing of such an order of sanction. The same not having been given all the attempted reopenings in these matters are technically bad in law and must be quashed and set aside. 25. I might also mention that as explained in a supplementary affidavit on the part of Kamala Properties, the said assessee being the writ petitioner, Is seeking to include in the assessment year of 1983-84 any extra money as its income in the said assessment year representing the difference between what was the assessed valuation for the relevant assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 and what might appear to be the new assessment on valuation in the current changed circumstances. If such return is made bringing in the difference in money as mercantile income in the assessment year 1983-84 or any other year the respondents would naturally be free to assess the same as income in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding any observations made by me in these matters in the above judgment. 26. Accordingly the four writ petitions succeed. The notices reopening assessment for each of the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 shall be quashed and there shall be writ absolute in the nature of Certiorari to that effect. There shall also be a declaration that the assessments made already in respect of these assessment years are each and all of them final and binding between the parties. 27. It is clarified that the further assessments, if any, made or completed pursuant to interim orders herein granting liberty to complete assessment without publishing or serving the same, shall not be published or served in future and shall also be treated as quashed by way of writs absolute in the nature of Certiorari. This order is merely a consequential upon what I have stated above. Notices of reopening assessment quashed; assessments already made declared final.