Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. By formulating the substantial question of law as to "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal of the revenue contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P.Ltd., (1992) 198 ITR 297", the revenue has come up on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, dated 112. 2008 passed in I.T.A.No.2550/Mds/2005 relating to the assessment year 1998-99, by which the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the revised order of assessment made under Section 147 of the Act. .2. The facts culled out from the statement of facts of the memorandum of grounds are as follows: .The appellant firm is engaged in the business of export of garments. For the assessment year 1998-99 the assesse filed its return admitting Rs.18,01,126/-as total income. Regular assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 12. 2000 accepting the income returned. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 111. 2003. The assessing officer has reduced the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC from Rs.1,08,82,826/- to Rs.96,79,243/- and further reduced the claim for deduction under Section 80-IA from Rs.42,27,984/-to Rs.13,99,699/-. Thus the total income under reassessment was determined at Rs.70,54,233/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,01,126/-and accepted by the assessing officer originally. 3. When the matter was taken on appeal to the first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after a very detailed analysis of facts, held that the reopening of the assessment was made by change of opinion. All the relevant facts were already available with the Assessing Officer when he framed the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. On that ground he allowed the appeal. 4. The revenue, not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), had filed the appeal before the Tribunal. All the relevant facts were already available with the Assessing Officer when he framed the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. On that ground he allowed the appeal. 4. The revenue, not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), had filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Formaer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566 SC; CIT v. Premier Mills Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 157; CIT v. Elgi ULtra Industries Ltd., (2008) 296ITR 573, CIT v. A.V.Thomas Exports Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 603 and accepting the contention of the assessee that all facts were very much available before the assessing officer at the time of making assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and four years period had already lapsed from the end of the assessment year the notice under Section 148 is invalid and the order made based on the invalid notice cannot be legally sustained, non suited the revenue for any relief. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the revenue on the question of law as stated above. 5. Before us, learned counsel for the revenue relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P.Ltd., (1992) 198 ITR 297. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revenue. .7. Let us now consider the relevant facts so as to find out whether the reopening of the assessment made in this case is legally sustainable as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue. It is an admitted fact that the assessees assessment in respect of the assessment year 1998-99 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 12. 2000. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer considered the claim made by the assessee under Sections 80HHC and 80-I and found to be in order and after discussion the assessment was completed accepting the income returned. The extraction of opinion of the Assessing Officer in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) makes the position amply clear, which reads: ."As the assessee firms business is export business the claims made u/S.80HHC were verified and found to be correct. The claim made u/s.80I is being claimed by the assessee as 5th year deduction. This deduction is also found to be in order. There is no case for any addition in this case. The claim made u/s.80I is being claimed by the assessee as 5th year deduction. This deduction is also found to be in order. There is no case for any addition in this case. After discussion the assessment is completed accepting the income returned." 8. The reasons given for reopening of the assessment were as follows: 1. The claim of deduction under Section 80I on the receipt of export entitlement and interest income were not directly derived from the industrial undertaking and therefore not allowable. 2. The claim of deduction on interest income is not allowable under Section 80HHC. 3. The assessee had not restricted the deduction under Section 80HHC and 80-I to the extent of those income comprised in the gross total income as per Section 80AB. 4. Under Chapter VIA of the Act there could not be two deductions as per Section 80 IA (9). 5. In the statement of total income the assessee has not taken the interest income under the head of income from other sources, but included in the business profit and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC and 80I. 9. On a perusal of the above reasoning stated for reopening of the assessment with reference to the conclusion reached in respect of the claim made by the assessee under Section 80HHC and 80-I in the original assessment order dated 12. 2000 the one and only conclusion that could be reached in this case is that the re-assessment was made on fresh application of mind to the same set of facts which were taken into consideration while framing the original assessment. The assessing officer allowed the claim made by the assessee under Section 80HHC and 80I after recording his satisfaction about the claim after discussion. It is not the case of inadvertent or oversight mistake which was discovered after completion of the assessment. Once the assessing officer allowed the claim of the assessee after taking into account all the relevant facts it is not permissible for the assessing officer or his successor to reopen the assessment at a later point of time under Section 147(b) of the Act unless any information comes from other source. No fresh information is available in this case with the assessing officer. No fresh information is available in this case with the assessing officer. Further, the assessing officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act only if on the basis of specific relevant information coming into his possession subsequently he has reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all the material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (ALA Firms Vs.CIT, (189 ITR 285 (SC)), Andhra Bank Vs. CIT, (225 ITR 447 (SC)) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. DCTT 234 ITR 170 (Delhi). .10. The case relied on by the revenue is CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P.Ltd., (1992) 198 ITR 297. In our view, the said decision does not further the case of the revenue as contended by them. The question decided in that case was, "where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally against the assessee, how far in reassessment on an escaped item of income it is open to the assessee to seek a review of the concluded item for the purpose of computation of the escaped income ? " In that case, subsequent to the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a disclosure petition in respect of some hundi loans and a settlement was arrived at between the assessee and the Revenue as a result of which the assessee became assessable for the disclosed sum. The Income-tax Officer considered the aforesaid amounts for the two assessment years as " escaped income ". On that basis, notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued and assessment was revised. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer should have redetermined the loss as declared in the original returns and set it off against the "escaped income" from other sources and even carried forward the loss, if necessary, to the subsequent assessment years. In those factual circumstances, the case came to be decided against the assessee. Even in that case, the Apex Court has held that "the assessing officers jurisdiction under Section 147 is confined only to such income, which has escaped assessment ... In those factual circumstances, the case came to be decided against the assessee. Even in that case, the Apex Court has held that "the assessing officers jurisdiction under Section 147 is confined only to such income, which has escaped assessment ... A matter not agitated in the concluded original assessment proceedings cannot be permitted to be agitated in the re-assessment proceedings unless relatable to the item sought to be taxed has escaped assessment." 11. As already stated, the question of law, which was projected before the Supreme Court, is nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of the reopening of the assessment and was whether an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally against the assessee, how far in reassessment on an escaped item of income it is open to the assessee to seek a review. In the very same case, the Apex Court has without any uncertain terms stated that it was neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete "law" declared by the Supreme court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Supreme court. A decision of the Supreme court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and, while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of the Supreme court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by the Supreme court, to support their reasonings. .12. The observations above referred to made in CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P.Ltd., (1992) 198 ITR 297 would equally apply to the contention made by the learned counsel for the revenue on the face of the question, which was dealt with by the Supreme Court in that case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the settled principle of law of the Apex Court above referred to, the appeal is dismissed by answering the question of law in affirmative and against the revenue.