Honble SINGH, CJ.–This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 16, 2004 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6962 of 2003, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Authority was quashed. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows : (2). The respondent company filed its return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on November 28, 1996. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Authority by its order dated February 26, 1999. However, on March 28, 2003, the Assessing Authority issued a notice to the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax 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 assessment year 1996-97 had escaped assessment. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148, the respondent filed a fresh return of income on March 28, 2003 before the Assessing Authority. Thereafter, the respondent on March 31, 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 assessment year 1996- 97 had escaped assessment. Not receiving any response from the Assessing Authority, the respondent on November 29, 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 dated December 5, 2003. The letter dated December 5, 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 principle amount and interest. The principle amount has not been allowed in the assessment as it represented the cost of machinery during the year i.e. A.Y. 1996-97 the lease rent on accrued basis has been shown at Rs. 92,77,532/-. In this claim also at lease Rs. 60,00,000 (approx) represented the principle amount towards the cost of the machinery. Therefore, because of wrong claim, the income chargeable to tax approx. 92,77,532/-. In this claim also at lease Rs. 60,00,000 (approx) represented the principle 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 dated December 10, 2003 & December 18, 2003. The Assessing Authority, however, through its letter dated January 12, 2004 rejected the objections raised by the respondent. (3). Thereafter, the respondent-company filed a writ petition on February 21, 2004 inter alia on the ground that the Assessing Authority had no jurisdiction to re-open 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 assessment year 1996-97 and, therefore, the period of limitation under Section 149 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, read with 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 Income Tax Act. The appellants aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, have preferred the instant appeal. (4). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (5). The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the Assessing Authority had reason to believe that the respondent had omitted and failed to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment relating to assessment year 1996-97. He contended that this was reflected by the communications of the Assessing Authority dated December 05, 2003 & January 12, 2004. Therefore, according to him, the Assessing Authority was justified in issuing notice to the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge quashing the notice was not sustainable in law. (6). Therefore, according to him, the Assessing Authority was justified in issuing notice to the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge quashing the notice was not sustainable in law. (6). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Assessing Authority issued the aforesaid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax 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 Income Tax 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 & 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 & truly all the material facts necessary for assessment, issued the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the period of four years from the date of the end of the relevant assessment year 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 Income-tax Act. (7). 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 Income Tax 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 & truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that particular year, income had escaped assessment. (8). In Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd., etc. vs. Income-tax Officer and Ors. (8). In Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd., etc. vs. Income-tax Officer and Ors. (1), the Supreme Court held that the assessing authority can issue notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax 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. (9). In Rakesh Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2), the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax 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 assessee 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. (10). In Amins Pathology Laboratory vs. P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors. (3), the Bombay High Court held as follows : ``Under explanation 1 to the proviso, mere production of account books from which material evidence could have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. Therefore, mere production of the balance-sheet, profit and loss account or account books will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. In the present case, the facts show that the Assessing Officer 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. (11). In Calcutta Discount Ltd. vs. ITO (4), 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 all the material and relevant facts that the Assessing Authority might not. (12). (11). In Calcutta Discount Ltd. vs. ITO (4), 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 all the material and relevant facts that the Assessing Authority might not. (12). The question, whether disclosure was made fully & 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. The kind of disclosure cannot be said to be a true & full disclosure of primary facts. (13). In the instant case, the assessee had claimed lease-rent on accrual basis. The letter of the Assessing Authority dated December 05, 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 lacs 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 assessment year 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 dated January 12, 2004, whereby the objections of the respondent in reply to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, were decided, it has been pointed out that the respondent did not ``uncover the lease-agreement and did not specify terms & condition thereof, which had material bearing on the assessment. In the letter dated January 12, 2004, the Assessing Authority has expressed the view that the respondent did not fully & 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 installments, what was interest element, when the interest was accruing and when interest payment was becoming due, what was the principle element. What was pre paid lease rent and likewise. What was pre paid 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 Asstt. Year 2000-01 in which you have provide 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 monitory and periodicity of payment aspects. You have also enclosed copy of all the relevant lease agreement. A reading of the letters dated December 05, 2003 & January 12, 2004 reflect that the escapement of income according to the Assessing Authority is attributable to wrong claim preferred by the assessee and its failure to disclose the material facts truly & 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 Income Tax Act. Therefore, Section 149 (1) (b), read with 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 Income Tax Act. The respondent cannot be allowed to short circuit the procedures prescribed by law. (14). In G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (5), the Supreme Court while declining to interfere with order passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing as premature the writ petition filed by the notice challenging the notice issued to it under Section 148 and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act without filing reply thereto held as follows : ``We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer 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 Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the above-said five assessment years. (15). In Rajan Products vs. Union of India (6), 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 Income Tax 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. (16). In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (7), 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 Income Tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of 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. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of 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. It seems to us that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued to a notice, he is to adopt the following path paved & recognized by the legislature and the judicial decisions :- (1) File return in response to the notice. (2) He can 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 Income Tax 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. (17). 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.