Y. R. MEENA,J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of a learned single judge dated March 23, 1988. The main grievance of the appellant before the learned single judge was that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The notice should be quashed. The petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned single judge on two grounds. Firstly, the learned judge was of the view that the wrif petition is premature and the assessee has alternate remedy. Therefore, no relief can be granted under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE assessment year is 1984-85. The previous year ended on December 31, 1983. The assessment was made under Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1995, on March 27, 1986. The notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued on March 28, 1995, for reopening of the assessment, as income escaped assessment on two items, i. e. , (1) Rs. 38,435 relating to alleged under-invoicing, and (2) Rs. 37,77,395 in respect of claim for depreciation on generators. ( 3 ) THE assessee is a manufacturer of tyres and during the relevant year two manufacturing units were under operation and the third unit which was under construction came into commercial operation only after the end of the relevant previous year, namely, December 31, 1983. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee did not claim any depreciation in respect of the third unit except on generators and the building in which such generators were installed. ( 4 ) THOSE generators were used in the business of the assessee during the previous year. In the original assessment initial depreciation was allowed on the generators. Thereafter on an application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, the extra-shift allowance was also allowed on these generators. ( 5 ) THE notice under Section 148 was issued for reopening of the assessment as income has escaped assessment. According to the Income-tax Officer, the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the material facts and depreciation on the generators has wrongly been allowed, ( 6 ) THE limited controversy therefore before us is whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 for reopening of the assessment. According to the Income-tax Officer, the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the material facts and depreciation on the generators has wrongly been allowed, ( 6 ) THE limited controversy therefore before us is whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 for reopening of the assessment. For reopening of the assessment notice under Section 148 read with Section 147{a) of the Act. The condition precedent is that income chargeable to tax has escaped by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year. ( 7 ) BEFORE we proceed further we would like to refer to some observations of the apex court to this effect whether and in what cases the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148. ( 8 ) IN ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das while considering the issue what are the conditions precedent for issue of notice under Section 148 their Lordships observed at page 445 as under :"it would appear from the perusal of the provisions reproduced above that two conditions have to be satisfied before an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 in respect of an assessment beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz. , (1) the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (2) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee (a) to make a return under Section 139 for the assessment year to the Income-tax Officer, or (b) to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Both these conditions must coexist in order to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer. It is also imperative for the Income-tax Officer to record his reasons before initiating proceedings as required by Section 148 (2 ). " ( 9 ) THEIR Lordships further considered the fact, if on the material facts the Income-tax Officer has drawn some inference and subsequently if it appears that his inference was wrong, he cannot issue the notice on the change of opinion regarding inference. " ( 9 ) THEIR Lordships further considered the fact, if on the material facts the Income-tax Officer has drawn some inference and subsequently if it appears that his inference was wrong, he cannot issue the notice on the change of opinion regarding inference. Their Lordships further observed to this effect as under (page 445) :"we may add that the duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment. Production before the Income-tax Officer of the account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Income-tax Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure contemplated by law. The duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that his duty ends. It is for the Income-tax Officer to draw the correct inference from the primary facts. It is no responsibility of the assessee to advise the Income-tax Officer with regard to the inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessment. " ( 10 ) IN Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO, their Lordships have observed as under :"it is well settled as a result of several decisions of this court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 147 (a ). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and, secondly, he must have reason to believe that such escapement is by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer would be without jurisdiction. The important 'words under Section 147 (a) are 'has reason to believe* and these words are stronger than the words 'is satisfied'. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer would be without jurisdiction. The important 'words under Section 147 (a) are 'has reason to believe* and these words are stronger than the words 'is satisfied'. The belief entertained by the Income-tax Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. " ( 11 ) THE same view has been taken by their Lordships in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO and reiterated that these two conditions are precedent for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At page 959, their Lordships observed as under (headnote) :"therefore, the obligation is to disclose facts ; secondly, those facts should be material ; thirdly, the disclosure must be full and, fourthly, true. What facts are material and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. In every assessment proceedings, for computing or determining the proper tax due from the assessee, it is necessary to know all the facts which help the assessing authority in coming to the correct conclusion. From the primary facts in his possession, whether on disclosure by the assessee, or discovered by him on the basis of the facts disclosed, or otherwise, the assessing authority has to draw inferences as to certain other facts. But, on the primary facts, it is for the taxing authority to draw inferences : it is not necessary for the assessee to draw inferences for him. " ( 12 ) IN the light of the above observations we have to consider whether before issue of the notice under Section 148 the Income-tax Officer has satisfied these two conditions. For that we have to refer to the material available to the Income-tax Officer at the time of original assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act. ( 13 ) THE admitted facts are that before the completion of the assessment order, the assessee filed a revised return on November 24, 1986, and in the revised returns the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 12,66,52,371 as per annexure 10 to the computation filed along with the return. In that said annexure 10 under the heading "factory-Ill", the assessee has also claimed depreciation of Rs. 13,820 on account of the building where the generators in question were installed. 12,66,52,371 as per annexure 10 to the computation filed along with the return. In that said annexure 10 under the heading "factory-Ill", the assessee has also claimed depreciation of Rs. 13,820 on account of the building where the generators in question were installed. The generators were used for business during the previous year and in annexure B at page 56 of the writ petition under the heading "plant-Ill" the details of the "plant-Ill" has been shown under annexure B. ( 14 ) IN annexure (v) to the return, the assessee has also claimed for investment allowance in respect of the said generators which was installed for "factory-Ill". It was explained in the directors' report. The directors' report was at page 82 of the writ petition which explained that due to shortage of power the generators in question were used for generation of power for factory Nos. 1 and 2. Not only that during the course of assessment proceedings further details were asked for to allow the depreciation on the generators. The assessee in response to the query has furnished details of capital work-in-progress and also shown the expenses in "factory-Ill" between Rs. 20,96,55,697 which includes the cost of the generators. ( 15 ) IN annexure II at page 37 of G. A. under the heading "factory-Ill" the opening balance after calculating depreciation was shown at Rs. 1,24,382 for the building and Rs. 1,26,19,306 for plant and machinery and the total claim for depreciation on the various assets of "factory-Ill" was shown at Rs. 8,63,60,776 vide annexures D and E. At page 39 of the G. A. under item 10 "power supply and distribution" there is a reference regarding addition of further DG sets and other assets in respect of "factory-Ill" have been given. Section wise details have been given at pages 39 to 49 of G. A. In the brief note submitted it was also clarified that "factory-III" started production only in March, 1984, that is in the assessment year 1985-86. Therefore, the depreciation was claimed only in respect of the generators and on the building in which the generators were installed. ( 16 ) IN the assessment made under Section 143 (3), the Income-tax Officer has allowed only normal depreciation but no extra-shift allowance was allowed on the ground that in the absence of requisite certificate from the appropriate authority no extra-shift allowance can be allowed. ( 16 ) IN the assessment made under Section 143 (3), the Income-tax Officer has allowed only normal depreciation but no extra-shift allowance was allowed on the ground that in the absence of requisite certificate from the appropriate authority no extra-shift allowance can be allowed. ( 17 ) AFTER the assessment under Section 143 (3) an application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 was moved annexing the certificate for extra-shift allowance, on considering the details and the certificate issued by the G. M. (Manufacturing) the claim of the assessee regarding extra-shift allowance was allowed, in the order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act on July 12, 1990. ( 18 ) THE aforesaid facts left no doubt that all the material facts in respect of the depreciation on generators in question is concerned were disclosed and after going through the details furnished, the claim of the assessee for depreciation was allowed not only the claim for depreciation on generators sets but extra-shift allowance was also allowed, in the order under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue has not brought to our notice as to what more particulars or material facts should be furnished at the time of assessment or order under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, which was not furnished or disclosed by the assessee at the time of assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1961 and in the order under Section 154 of the Act of 1961. ( 20 ) WHEN the assessee has disclosed all material facts for the allowance for depreciation on generators in our considered opinion there is no justification to issue the notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act. ( 21 ) THE other item which has been made a ground for the notice is the amount of Rs. 38,435. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee submits that the assessment was made on March 27, 1986, and in view of the provision of Section 149 (1) (a) (ii) which provides that notice under Section 148 can be issued for the relevant assessment year if not more than seven years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs. 50,000 or more in that year. 50,000 or more in that year. Here the income escaped in item No. (1) is less than Rs. 50,000, i. e. , Rs. 38,435 and, admittedly, the notice is issued dated March 28, 1995, that is beyond seven years from the end of relevant assessment years. ( 23 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts and law referred to above we found no justification in the action of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. In the result, the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated March 23, 1988, is set aside and we quash the notice dated March 28, 1995, The appeal is allowed.