Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been deferred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reference made under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act was bad in law and the assessment made on July 31, 1982, is barred by limitation ?" 2. The assessee-firm derived income form the export of sports goods for the assessment year 1979-80. A return showing an income of Rs. 3,78,230 was filed on October 29,1979. The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle-II, Jalandhar, computed the total income at Rs. 7,47,350 vide assessment order dated July 31,1982. This was done after making a reference under Section 144B of the Act to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.) Range, Jalandhar, and obtaining instructions from him. In this process, the Income-tax Officer availed of the extended period of limitation as provided in clause (iv) of Explanation 1 of Section 153(3) of the Act. 3. The assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had wrongly followed the procedure laid down under Section 144B of the Act, and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was claimed that the Income-tax Officer had concurrent jurisdiction along with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 125A of the Act and, therefore, in the light of Sub-section (7) of Section 144B, the procedure laid down under that Section was not required to be followed. 4. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and annulled the assessment. This issue had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Gheru lal Bal Chand [1998] 233 ITR 82, wherein it has been held that Sub-section (7) of Section 144B was not attracted and the procedure laid down in that Section had been rightly followed as the Income-tax Officer, having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 125A of the Act, proposed to make variation in the income of the assessee by an amount exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. 5. 1 lakh. 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid view, the question referred to this court is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. No costs.