Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of assessment under s. 147(b) is correct. 2. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1975-76 concerning the assessee's income was reopened by the ITO on the ground that at the time he completed the assessment he was not aware of and had not taken note of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce vs. CIT, a decision which was rendered by the apex Court on 17th September, 1975. The assessment order was made on 21st April, 1976. The reassessment effected by the ITO after so reopening the assessment was set aside by the CIT on the ground that the decision relied upon by the ITO for reopening the assessment was available even before the assessment was completed and, therefore, could not constitute information justifying the reopening of the assessment. 3. The Tribunal on an appeal by the Department has rightly set aside the decision of the CIT and held that is not the date of publication of the judgment that is material but what is the material is as to whether the ITO when completing the assessment was aware of and had taken note of the same. It has held that the ITO was not aware of the judgment when the assessment was completed. 4. The learned counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ALA Firm vs. CIT, wherein it was held that though the ITO at the time of the original assessment had looked at the facts and accepted the assessee's contention but had obviously missed to take the law laid down by the High Court earlier, and there was nothing to show that the case was brought to his notice, it was open to the ITO when he subsequently became aware of the decision to initiate proceedings under s. 147(b), as the binding decision of the Court which had not been applied while making the original assessment would be the material which constitutes information on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened. 5. 5. It is not the case of the assessee here that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (supra) had been brought to the notice of the ITO when he made the original assessment order. It is also not the case of the assessee that the ITO had knowledge of the decision when he made the order. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the ITO was not aware of the decision when the original order of assessment was made. 6. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion was right in holding that the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (supra) did constitute information justifying the reopening of the assessment. 7. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.