JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dated September 5, 2014, in I.T.A. No. 2687/Ahd/2010 (Asst. CIT (OSD) v. Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Ltd. : [2014] 35 ITR (Trib.) 498 (Ahd.)) and Cross Objection No. 153/Ahd/2013 for the assessment year 2003-04 by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the cross-objections preferred by the assessee and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue by holding that initiation of the reassessment proceedings/reopening of the assessment, which was admittedly beyond the period of four years, was invalid, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeals with the following proposed questions of law: Tax Appeal No. 135 of 2015 "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by not upholding the issuance of notice under section 148 as per the provisions available as per Explanation 2(c)(iii) and 2(c)(iv) given below section 147 of the Income-tax Act, by the Assessing Officer and thereby allowing deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act without appreciating the fact that deduction under section 80-IB is eligible for the SSI unit only where the investment in fixed assets on plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 3 crores whereas the total value of the plant and machinery as per the balance-sheet for all the three assessment years under consideration was above 3 crores?" Tax Appeal No. 136 of 2015 "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the issuance of notice under section 148 was bad in law which was issued as per the provisions available as per Explanation 2(c)(iii) and 2(c)(iv) given below section 147 of the Income-tax Act?" The facts leading to the present tax appeals in a nut-shell are as under; 1.1 The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 and claimed deduction under section 80-IBof the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessee also produced the balance-sheet along with the return in which the total value of the plant and machinery was certified at Rs. 4,73,81,571 as on April 1, 2002, i.e., at the beginning of the financial year 2002-03 relevant to the assessment year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer granted the deduction under section 80-IB of the Act as claimed. The assessee also produced the balance-sheet along with the return in which the total value of the plant and machinery was certified at Rs. 4,73,81,571 as on April 1, 2002, i.e., at the beginning of the financial year 2002-03 relevant to the assessment year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer granted the deduction under section 80-IB of the Act as claimed. Thereafter, after a period of four years of completing the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act mainly on the ground that though the assessee ceased to be a SSI unit as it exceeded the limit of investment of plant and machinery, i.e., exceeding the limit of Rs. 1 crore and thus it is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. The assessee was served with the reasons for reopening of the assessment by submitting that as for the assessment year 2003-04 the investment of plant and machinery was beyond Rs. 1 crore and thereby the assessee being ceased to be a SSI unit is not eligible under section 80-IB of the Act and despite the same the assessee claimed and was allowed deduction under section 80-IB of the Act of Rs. 35,40,963 for the assessment year 2003-04 and, therefore, the income chargeable to tax has escaped under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed the reassessment order for the assessment year 2003-04 and deleted the deduction under section 80-IB of the Act amounting to Rs. 38,07,493 and revised the income. 1.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2003-04 of disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act amounting to Rs. 38,07,493 the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that initiation of the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, which was beyond the period of four years, was illegal and not permissible as there was no commission and/or suppression on the part of the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act was justified and was permissible. However, on the merits, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act was justified and was permissible. However, on the merits, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. 1.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act on the merits, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, being I.T.A. No. 2687/Ahd/2010. Against the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding the initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act as legal and permissible, the assessee preferred Cross Objection No. 153/Ahd/2013 before the learned Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Tribunal has allowed the cross objections preferred by the assessee and held that initiation of the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2003-04 was bad in law. Consequently, the learned Tribunal did not decide the appeal preferred by the Revenue on the merits. 1.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2687/Ahd/2010 and Cross Objection No. 153/Ahd/2013, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeals. 2. We have heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at length and we have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act as well as the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. At the outset, it is required to be noted that admittedly the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2003-04 was beyond the period of four years and, therefore, the parameters, which would be applicable for initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act within the period of four years, would defer from initiation of the proceedings beyond four years. From the record, it appears and it is not disputed by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, that as such along with the original return for the assessment year 2003-04 the assessee had produced the balance-sheet in which the total value of the plant and machinery was Rs. 4,73,81,571. From the record, it appears and it is not disputed by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, that as such along with the original return for the assessment year 2003-04 the assessee had produced the balance-sheet in which the total value of the plant and machinery was Rs. 4,73,81,571. Despite the above, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under section 80-IB of the Act and, therefore, as such, it cannot be said that there was any omission and/or suppression on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the true and correct facts. If that be so, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in holding the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2003-04 as bad in law. It is true that the learned Tribunal has not specifically so observed. However, from the facts borne out from the record and even it is not disputed by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that along with the original return for the assessment year 2003-04 the assessee did produce the balance-sheet in which the value of the plant and machinery was certified at Rs. 4,73,81,571 and, therefore, there was no omission and/or suppression on the part of the assessee that the assessee did not disclose true and correct facts. We confirm the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that initiation of the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2003-04 was not permissible and was not legal and as such was bad in law. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly not considered the appeal preferred by the Revenue which was on the merits of deletion of disallowance under section 80-IB of the Act. Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present tax appeals and the same deserves to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. As such, no substantial question of law arise in the present tax appeals. 2.1 At this stage, Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue, has requested to make observation that the present order shall not come in the way of the Revenue in other appeals with respect to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 where initiation of proceeding were within the period of four years. 2.1 At this stage, Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue, has requested to make observation that the present order shall not come in the way of the Revenue in other appeals with respect to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 where initiation of proceeding were within the period of four years. Under the circumstances, it is clarified that the present order shall be applicable with respect to the assessment year 2003-04 as initiation of the reassessment proceedings was beyond the period of four years and it was found that there was no suppression and/or omission on the part of the assessee. With this, the both the tax appeals are dismissed.