Rajesh Balia, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2003. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: “ The controversy involved in this case is very narrow as the assessee has raised the grievance that the case has been reopened without giving the assessee the copy of reasons for reopening. Without contesting the case, Shri Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing the revenue, has made a submission that the revenue will supply the reasons for reopening to the petitioner and limitation for filling the return shall apply from the date of supplying the reasons. In view of the statement made by Shri Bhandawat, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is, therefore, disposed of finally with the direction that the assessee may appear before the Assessing Authority, Bikaner by or on 23.1.2003 and the Assessing Authority is requested to supply him the reasons for reopening and the assessee shall have a right to file the return reconning the period of limitation.” 3. The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent No. 1 under Sec. 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment of the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96. The impugned notice under challenge had been issued on 7th of June, 2001 that is to say after expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year 1995 -96 in relation to which the reassessment was sought to be made. 4. The notice dated 27.06.2001 was a second notice issued under Sec. 148 by the respondent. 5. The brief facts leading to issuance of the second notice be noticed. The assessee had submitted return for the assessment year 1995-96. The Assessing Officer acting under Sec. 143(1) made certain adjustment in the return submitted by the assessee and raised additional demand by making enhancement in the returned income. No notice under Sec. 143(2) was served on the assessee within 12 months from this date of filing of the return. But assessee against the intimation had preferred application under Sec. 154 as per the remedy provided against such intimation made by the assessee without notice to him. No notice under Sec. 143(2) was served on the assessee within 12 months from this date of filing of the return. But assessee against the intimation had preferred application under Sec. 154 as per the remedy provided against such intimation made by the assessee without notice to him. Intimation about the reduced refund as claimed by the assessee had been sent to him in terms of Section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 after making certain adjustments in the return submitted by the assessee by dis-allowing certain claims of the assessee. Since the amount of refund was less than Rs. 1 lac the assessee’s case did not come within the province of review of the regular scheme for making assessment under Sec. 143(3). 6. However, the assessee resorted to Section 154 by moving an application for rectification of the intimation reducing the refund claimed by the assessee. 7. The application moved by the assessee under Sec. 154 was allowed and the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer were deleted and the assessment was restored to returned Income. 8. However, since the notice under Sec. 143(2) for regular assessment under Sec. 143(3), was send within time prescribed, notice under Sec. 148 was issued in the first instance on 14.5.1997 relying on circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and regular assessment was made. 9. The assessment order framed in pursuance to the said notice was annulled by the CIT (Appeals) on 5.6.2000. The order of CIT (A) was subjected to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue. 10. While the appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 5.6.2000 was pending before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 resorted once again to issue the impugned notice dated 7.6.2001 under Sec. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act as a protective measure in case the order of the CIT (Appeals) is sustained by the Tribunal which the Tribunal ultimately did sustain vide order dated 2.2.2005 passed during the pendency of this appeal. A copy of which has been submitted in appeal. Be that as it may, the validity of those proceedings are not before us. 11. A copy of which has been submitted in appeal. Be that as it may, the validity of those proceedings are not before us. 11. Apparently one of the grounds raised while challenging the notice under Section 148 dated 7.6.2001 was that the initiation of proceeding under Sec. 148 was barred by time and Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings afresh after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 12. The reasons which led to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer about the necessary conditions giving him jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Sec. 148 has to be recorded before issuance of notice. It provides the foundational material to judge whether the jurisdiction has been validly assumed by the Assessing Officer or not. The scope of enquiry while considering the challenge to the notice under Sec. 148 is no more or no less. The Assessing Officer has not supplied the copy of the reasons recorded by him when such assumption order was challenged though demanded by the assessee. Hence, when challenge to issue notice was made on the ground that condition precedent for issuing notice did not exist and the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice. It was the duty of the Assessing Officer to place that material before the Court. 13. It is trite to say that adequacy and sufficiency of reasons and the material on the basis of which satisfaction has been recorded is not the subject matter of judicial review. If there is some relevant material having nexus to the formation of the satisfaction holding the belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to act under Sec. 147. Further the limitation on the power of exercising jurisdiction is that if the satisfaction about such escapement of income from assessment is that such escapement is as a result of failure on the part of assessee to file return of his income for the relevant assessment year in terms of Sec. 139 or other relevant provisions or where the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully all facts necessary for assessment, the period of limitation for initiating process extend beyond the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which is to be reassessed and to be re-initiated. The period of limitation in such case depends upon the quantum of income that is estimated to have escaped assessment. However, where the escapement of income from the assessment is not attributable to any failure on the part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer does not get jurisdiction to initiate proceeding after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment years. Proviso to Section 147 which was substituted w.e.f. 1.4.1989 is apposite to notice here, reads as under:- “ Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Sec. 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Sec. 142 or Sec. 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for this assessment, for that assessment year”. 14. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. Section 149 provides limitation within which notice under Sec. 148 be issued in cases not covered by proviso to Sec. 147. Therefore, key to adjudge the validity of assumption of jurisdiction within the time frame depend on the reasons which have been recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under Sec. 148. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are, therefore, necessary to be looked into before one can embark on adjudication on the question of validity by the assessee. 15. Apparently when assessee has challenged the notice issued on 7.6.2001 on the ground that the Assessing Officer has acted beyond jurisdiction and inherently lacked jurisdiction on the date, the minimum expectation of the respondent was to place the reasons before the Court and then to seek adjudication. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent’s counsel instead of disclosing the reasons to the Court offered to disclose the assessee himself. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent’s counsel instead of disclosing the reasons to the Court offered to disclose the assessee himself. Apparently, this would not help the adjudication of the cause which was brought by the assessee before the Court and, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was not right in directing the disclosure of the reasons to the Assessee and then filing a return without resorting to his right to challenge the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer which would render the whole assessment proceedings, if on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, to be void ab initio. 17. It is in these circumstances, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 18. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under Sec. 148 on 7.6.2001 has been placed before us. A bare perusal of the reasons goes to show that the Assessing Officer has recorded his reasons only on the basis of his opinion about the net profit rate which ought to provide the correct result of the profit of the liquor business. We are constrained to say that what is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer should be the correct profit has no nexus with formation of any opinion that there has been any failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment. If the Assessing Officer while making the assessment has an opinion that books of accounts are maintained in such a manner that it is not possible to compute the income correctly, it may reject the books of accounts and resort to best judgment assessment. But that cannot be termed as a case of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. It becomes a matter of opinion held by Assessing Officer that what should be the reasonable rate of profit arrived from the business of the assessee on any estimated basis. Holding such opinion is neither a material to hold a further belief, nor has any nexus with the formation of belief, that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment in question. Holding such opinion is neither a material to hold a further belief, nor has any nexus with the formation of belief, that there has been failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment in question. Apparently, the Assessing Officer was labouring under an illusion that what he thinks to be correct the result of the assessee’s business amounts to non-disclosure of fully and truly all facts necessary for the assessment of assessee on the part of the assessee. The assessee’s duty ends with disclosure of full and true all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. His duty does not go further to instruct Assessing Officer to draw any particular inference from such facts. The assessee’s duty also does not extend to declare income at a figure which tallies with the estimated rate of profit that commends to the Assessing Officer. What inferences are drawn from facts disclosed by the assessee is a question of difference of the opinion and it cannot have any attribution to failure on the part of assessee to disclose all necessary facts. Nothing has been stated that what relevant fact all material, if any was not disclosed by the assessee. 19. We may invite attention to the scope of subjective satisfaction. It is tritely stated that subjective satisfaction may be arrived at by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be founded on the material which has no nexus with the formation of the requisite belief, or on non-existent material. 20. The attention may be invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another vs. Company Law Board and Ors. AIR (54) 1967 SC 295. 21. Present is a case in which from the reading of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under Sec. 148 reveals that there was no material before the Assessing Officer to reach even subjective satisfaction that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant year 1995-96, on account of which income of the assessee had escaped assessment. That being the position, the assumption of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer after expiry of 4 years from the end of assessment year 1995-96 that is to say after 31st March, 2000 to reopen the assessment for assessment year 1995-96 was wholly without jurisdiction and could not have fructified in any valid proceedings. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notices under Sec. 148 dated 7th June, 2001 and 27th June 2001 are quashed. Consequently any proceedings in furtherance of such notices, if any, also stand quashed. 23. This is without prejudice to merit of the order passed under reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the first notice under Sec. 148 and the remedial measures for that may be taken against the orders passed by the Tribunal by the aggrieved party. No orders as to costs. * * * * *