Judgment Anil Dev Singh, C.J.-This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 16th March, 2004, rendered in SB Civil Writ Petn. No. 6962 of 2003 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, by the assessing authority was quashed. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The respondent-company filed its return of income for the asst. yr, 1996-97 on 28th Nov., 1996. The assessment was completed by the assessing authority by its order dt. 26th Feb., 1999. However, on 28th March, 2003, the assessing authority issued a notice to the respondent under Section 148 of the IT Act requiring the respondent to deliver to it (assessing authority) within 30 days from the date of service of the notice a return in the prescribed form on the ground that it has reason to believe that the income of the respondent chargeable for the asst. yr. 1996-97 had escaped assessment. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148, the respondent filed a fresh return of income on 28th March, 2003, before the assessing authority. Thereafter, the respondent on 31st March, 2003, wrote a letter to the assessing authority requesting it to convey the reasons on the basis of which it had formed an opinion that the income of the respondent chargeable for the asst. yr. 1996-97 had escaped assessment. Not receiving any response from the assessing authority, the respondent on 29th Nov., 2003, again wrote a letter to it requesting it to furnish the reasons. It appears that the communication had the desired effect as the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished to the respondent by the assessing authority by its letter dt. 6th Dec., 2003. The letter dt. 5th Dec., 2003, reads as follows: “It is noticed that the assessee has claimed lease rent on accrual basis. On examination of the account, it revealed that the claim represented principal amount and interest. The principal amount has not been allowed in the assessment as it represented the cost of machinery during the year i.e., asst. yr. 1996-97; the lease rent on accrued basis has been shown at Rs. 92,77,532. In this claim also at least Rs. 60,00,000 (approx.) represented the principal amount towards the cost of the machinery. Therefore, because of wrong claim, the income chargeable to tax approx. yr. 1996-97; the lease rent on accrued basis has been shown at Rs. 92,77,532. In this claim also at least Rs. 60,00,000 (approx.) represented the principal amount towards the cost of the machinery. Therefore, because of wrong claim, the income chargeable to tax approx. 60,00,000 has escaped assessment.” Pursuant to the notice, the respondent raised objections by means of replies dt. 10th Dec., 2003, and 18th Dec., 2003. The assessing authority, however, through its letter dt. 12th Jan., 2004, rejected the objections raised by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent-company filed a writ petition on 21st Feb., 2004, inter alia, on the ground that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148, after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there was no failure on the part of the respondent to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year in question. The learned single Judge was of the view that there was no satisfaction on the part of the assessing authority that the escapement of income chargeable to tax was on account of failure on the part of the assessee to file return disclosing fully and truly all material facts for the asst. yr. 1996-97 and, therefore, the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, nw Section 147 thereof was not extendable beyond four years from the date of the end of the relevant assessment year. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act. The appellants, aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, have preferred the instant appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Thelearned counsel for appellants submitted that the assessing authority had reason to believe that the respondent had omitted and failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment relating to asst. yr. 1996 97. He contended that this was reflected by the communications of the assessing authority dt. 5th Dec., 2003, and 12th Jan., 2004. Therefore, according to him, the assessing authority was justified in issuing notice to the respondent under Section 148 of the IT Act and the impugned order of the learned single Judge quashing the notice was not sustainable in law. He contended that this was reflected by the communications of the assessing authority dt. 5th Dec., 2003, and 12th Jan., 2004. Therefore, according to him, the assessing authority was justified in issuing notice to the respondent under Section 148 of the IT Act and the impugned order of the learned single Judge quashing the notice was not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the assessing authority issued the aforesaid notice under Section 148 of the IT Act after a period of four years from the date of the end of the relevant assessment year and, therefore, in order to take the advantage of Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, which stretches the period of limitation beyond four years, it must be demonstrated from the reasons for issuance of the notice that the assessing authority was satisfied that the assessee had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. According to the learned counsel, the assessing authority without having reason to believe, that, on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment, issued the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act after the period of four years from the date of the end of the relevant asst. yr. 1996-97, which it was not competent to do. As per the learned counsel for the respondent the company had made full and true disclosure of the material facts in its return and, therefore, the assessing authority was not right in issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The legal position on the subject is well-settled. The assessing authority has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, after four years from the end of the relevant year, in case the assessing authority has reason to believe that on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file the return or on account of failure on his part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that particular year, income had escaped assessment. 6. In Sri Krishna (P) Ltd., etc. vs. ITO & Ors. 6. In Sri Krishna (P) Ltd., etc. vs. ITO & Ors. (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessing authority can issue notice under Section 148 of the IT Act to the assessee, where it has reason to believe that on account of either the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to file the return or on account of the omission or failure on his part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for a particular year, income has escaped assessment. 7. In Rakesh Agarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 492 (Del), the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with proceedings initiated by the ITO under Section 147 of the IT Act by issuing notice under Section 148 thereof In that case the material for assessment lay embedded in the record which was furnished by the assesses and it could be discerned only by careful and deep scrutiny of the same and, therefore, the belief of the assessing authority that the assessee had not disclosed material facts truly and fully in his assessment was not faulted by the Delhi High Court. 8. In Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs. P.N. Prasad, Jt. CIT & Ors. (2001) 262 ITR 673 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held as follows: “Under Expln. 1 to the proviso, mere production of account books from which material evidence could have been discovered by the AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. Therefore, mere production of the balance sheet, P&L a/c or account books will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. In the present case, the facts show that the AO overlooked the aforestated item. That, he noticed it subsequently. That, at the time of passing the original order of assessment, he could not be said to have opined on the above item. Therefore, there was no change of opinion. Therefore, in the present case, the impugned notice is sustained.” 9. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), it was observed that if some material for the assessment lay embedded in the evidence, then, it is the duty of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the assessing authority because the assessee knows ail the material and relevant facts that the assessing authority might not. 10. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), it was observed that if some material for the assessment lay embedded in the evidence, then, it is the duty of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the assessing authority because the assessee knows ail the material and relevant facts that the assessing authority might not. 10. Thequestion, whether disclosure was made fully and truly depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where primary facts lie hidden or embedded in the record including the books of account, which are filed along with the return, it may require detailed exercise and deep study to discern or uncover the same. This kind of disclosure cannot be said to be a true and full disclosure of primary facts. 11. In theinstant case, the assessee had claimed lease-rent on accrual basis. The letter of the assessing authority dt. 5th Dec., 2003, records that the lease-rent on that basis had been shown as Rs. 92,77,532. It also points out that in the amount of Rs. 92,77,532, at least Rs. 60 lakhs represented the principal amount towards cost of machinery and that this could be unveiled only on examination of the accounts. According to the aforesaid letter of the assessing authority, due to the filing of wrong claim by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1996-97, a sum of approximately Rs. 60,00,000, which was chargeable to income-tax, had escaped assessment. Again, in the letter of the assessing authority dt. 12th Jan., 2004, whereby the objections of the respondent in reply to the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, were decided, it has been pointed out that the respondent did not “uncover the lease-agreement” and did not specify terms and conditions thereof , which had material bearing on the assessment, In the letter dt. 12th Jan., 2004, the assessing authority has expressed the view that the respondent did not fully and truly disclose all the material facts. The following observations of the assessing authority contained in the communication need to be quoted: “You did not bother to provide what were the transactions and conditions of lease rent, who were the lessor, what were the instalments, what was interest element, when the interest was accruing and when interest payment was becoming due, what was the principal element, what was prepaid lease rent and likewise. You did not come forward with sample copy of lease agreement by you with lessor. In this connection please refer similar enquiry during the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 2000-0 1 in which you have provided 1 page of expressed explanation and as many as 58 pages of supporting evidence which includes summary of lease payment for the relevant year and the summary to each lease agreement in terms of monetary and periodicity of payment aspects. You have also enclosed copy of all the relevant lease agreement.” A reading of the letters dt. 5th Dec., 2003, and 12th Jan., 2004, reflect that the escapement of income according to the assessing authority is attributable to wrong claim preterred by the assessee and its failure to disclose the material facts truly and fully. Thus, the reason recorded by the assessing authority has nexus with the formation of belief by the assessing authority for taking action under Section 147 of the IT Act. Therefore, Section 149(1)(b), nw Section 147 has been invoked by the assessing authority for reopening the assessment. It is well settled that the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge. The final order which may be passed by the assessing authority under Section 147, if it goes against the respondent, is appealable under Section 246 of the IT Act. The respondent cannot be allowed to short-circuit the procedures prescribed by law. 12. In G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), the Supreme Court while declining to interfere with order passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing as premature the writ petition filed by the noticee challenging the notice issued to it under Sections 148 and 143(1) of the IT Act without filing reply thereto, held as follows: “We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clariir that when a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the AO has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 13. In Rajan Products vs. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 101 (Raj), a Division Bench of this Court held that the assessee should desist from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for assailing the notice issued under Section 147 of the IT Act since the assessee has a right to file reply to the notice and after the decision, he has an alternative remedy of filing appeal before the appellate authority. 14. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessee has a right to object to the notice of the assessing authority for reopening the assessment by means of a reply and it is also open to the assessee to prove before it that the assumption of facts made in the notice under Section 148 are erroneous. In this regard the Supreme Court held as follows: “We are of the view that the Court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the ITO after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits ot the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority.” 15. It seems to us that when a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued to a noticee, he is to adopt the following path paved and recognised by the legislature and the judicial decisions (1) File return in response to the notice. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority.” 15. It seems to us that when a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act is issued to a noticee, he is to adopt the following path paved and recognised by the legislature and the judicial decisions (1) File return in response to the notice. .(2) Hecan ask the assessing authority to furnish reasons for issuance of the notice, which the assessing authority is bound to communicate to him within a, reasonable time. .(3) On receiving the reasons he may file objections thereto, which the assessing authority is bound to decide by a speaking order before proceeding with reassessment of income chargeable to tax with regard to the relevant assessment year. .(4) After the passing of the order of reassessment under Section 147 of the IT Act by the assessing authority, the assessee, if not satisfied with the order, can file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 246 thereof 16. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. It is clarified that any observation made herein shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case.