JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Dhruva Agrawal, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The parties have exchanged pleadings and they agree for final disposal of the petition on the basis of the pleadings on record. 3. The original records pertaining to assessment and reassessment produced by Sri Gaurav Mahajan have also been considered. 4. The challenge in this petition is to the notice dated 31.3.2015 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 2008-09 and to the order dated 4.2.2016 by which the objections of the petitioner against the said notice have been rejected. 5. On the filing of this petition by an interim order dated 22.2.2016 further proceedings of reassessment were directed to be kept in abeyance and as such no order of reassessment till date has been passed by the Assessing Officer. 6. It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner had filed return for the assessment year 2008-09 on 28.9.2008. The case was selected for scrutiny and a revised return was furnished on 31.3.2010 whereupon an assessment order was passed on 22.12.2010 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 7. Sri Dhuva Agrawal, Senior counsel submits that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 21.3.2015 is without jurisdiction. The limitation for issuing such a notice is generally four years, which is extendable to a minimum of six years provided an additional ground of non disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessment is made out. The reason for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as supplied by the respondents does not contain any such reason and therefore, the notice is not only barred by limitation but is bad for non fulfilment of the mandatory condition contained in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 8. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, on the other hand, submits that the reasons on record clearly point out that the authority has reason to believe that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment. Therefore, the authorities are within their jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment. 8. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, on the other hand, submits that the reasons on record clearly point out that the authority has reason to believe that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment. Therefore, the authorities are within their jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment. The notice dated 31.3.2015 is well within the period of limitation of six years as proper sanction under Section 151 of the Act was taken from the appropriate authority. 9. Before adverting to the respective contention of the parties it would be relevant to first deal with one another aspect of the matter which has been raised by Sri Gaurav Mahajan that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has participated in the proceedings by filing objections against the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 10. There is no dispute that on receipt of the notice under Section 148 of the Act the petitioner had filed objections and the same were dismissed. 11. In GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited v. Income Tax Officer and others, (2003) 1 SCC 72 , it has been held that once a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued to the assessee the proper course for him is to apply for the reasons behind issuing the said notice and to file objections thereof which shall be considered and decided by the Assessing Officer by a speaking order. Once the said procedure is exhausted the assessee can invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court so as to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 12. The petitioner in substance has followed the above procedure before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and as such the petition filed on his behalf cannot be held to be not maintainable. 13. This apart the decision of Amaya Infrastructure Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer and others, (2016) 383 ITR 498 (Bom), relied upon by Sri Gaurav Mahajan in this connection itself observes that the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are plenary in nature and therefore if the Court finds that interest of justice require exercise of the said power, it can very well do so if the order impugned on the face of it is either without jurisdiction or is in violation of the principles of natural justice or within the teeth of express provisions of law. 14. 14. In view of the above, the objection of the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable is not sustainable and we are not inclined to deny the exercise our power of judicial review in the facts and circumstances of the case as the questions of jurisdiction and non compliance of statutory provisions are involved. 15. Section 147 of the Act authorizes the Assessing Officer to recompute and reassess the income of assessee for any particular assessment year subject to the provisions of Sections 148-153 of the Act provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 16. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act lays down that no action for reassessment under it shall be taken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the assessee fails to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. 17. In other words,the Assessing Officer is empowered to initiate proceedings for reassessment if he has reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year and thereafter provided the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 18. To put it differently and in a more simpler form formation of the opinion as to the existence of reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment is a sine-quo-non for proceeding with the reassessment.The reassessment proceedings should be initiated within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In case they are initiated subsequently then another mandatory condition comes into play to the effect that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 19. In short, for initiating proceedings for reassessment within the or during four year period of limitation the mandatory condition of “reason to believe” must be satisfied whereas for initiating reassessment proceedings beyond the above period of limitation it is also necessary to satisfy another condition with regard to non disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment truly and fully. 20. In short, for initiating proceedings for reassessment within the or during four year period of limitation the mandatory condition of “reason to believe” must be satisfied whereas for initiating reassessment proceedings beyond the above period of limitation it is also necessary to satisfy another condition with regard to non disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment truly and fully. 20. In view of the above, for the purposes of reassessment the following two conditions are required to be satisfied; first the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income as escaped assessment in a particular assessment year; and secondly, he must also have reason to believe that such escapement of the income has occurred on account of omission on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. 21. The first condition is mandatory where the action is taken within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, fulfilment of the second condition would only be necessary if the proceedings are drawn after the expiry of four years. Therefore, in case of any action for reassessment after the expiry of four years, both the above two conditions are mandatory. 22. Section 149 of the Act provides for the extended period of limitation and lays down that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued for reassessment on the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year but not more than six years after the expiry of the end of the relevant assessment year. It thus prescribes the outer limit of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to be six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 23. At the same time, Section 151 of the Act lays down that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued by Assessing Officer after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the authority specified therein is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for issue of such notice. 24. 24. In the case at hand, it is not disputed that the relevant assessment year came to an end in 2009 and therefore, the limitation of four years and the extended limitation of six years for issuing notice under Section 148 was to expire on 31.3.2013 and 31.3.2015 respectively. 25. The notice under Section 148 of the Act was given on the last date of the extended period of limitation i.e. 31.3.2015. 26. The record reveals that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, NOIDA on 31.3.2015 has recorded its satisfaction that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 for making reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. 27. The reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were intimated to the petitioner and the said reasons are contained in annexure 1 to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner. The said document is dated 31.3.2015 itself and records that as per the information received from the office of the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (TDS) NOIDA, it is apparent that the petitioner has not deducted tax at source on the lease rent paid during the financial year 2007-08. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner records that he has reason to believe that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment to the extent of TDS liable to be deducted. 28. The said document is also part of the original record as produced by Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent and is not disputed. 29. Apart from the above, neither the aforesaid document nor any other document on record reveals any other reason for recording satisfaction for grant of permission for reassessment. There is no finding or reason that the petitioner has failed to disclose fully and truly all the relevant material facts necessary for proper assessment. 30. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer on the basis of the material before him or for the reason that the petitioner had not deducted TDS on the lease rent during the financial year 2007-08, may have been satisfied that he has reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped the assessment to a certain extent but it no where records any finding that particulars as submitted by the petitioner were not sufficient or were otherwise lacking in some way making it impossible to assess its income. 31. 31. In other words, there is no finding or the reason recorded by the Assessing Authority that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which were necessary for the assessment. 32. The petitioner admittedly had submitted the complete details of the lease rent paid to the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority during the financial year and that he had not deducted any tax at source. No material in this regard was suppressed by the petitioner and at the same time, no incorrect disclosure in that regard was made by it. The above disclosure was well within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment proceedings. 33. In view of the above, the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act regarding non disclosure of full and true particulars necessary for assessment was not satisfied for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 34. Admittedly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and actually on the last date of extended period of limitation of six years. 35. Thus, in view of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no notice under Section 148 of the Act could have been issued to the petitioner as the second condition mentioned therein was not satisfied. 36. The view taken by us aforesaid finds support by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Kanpur v. Mirza International Limited, (2015) 54 Taxman.com 217 (Allahabad). The Division Bench therein categorically held that as the revenue failed to make out a case that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment, the reassessment proceedings started after the expiry of initial period are not maintainable and deserves to be set aside. 37. The Division Bench therein categorically held that as the revenue failed to make out a case that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment, the reassessment proceedings started after the expiry of initial period are not maintainable and deserves to be set aside. 37. Sri Garuav Mahajan has tried to place the finding of the order dated 4.2.2016, wherein it has been recorded that non deduction of TDS was failure on part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully material facts but we are afraid that the order rejecting objections of the petitioner is not part of the reasoning for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as the said order had come in existence after the issuance of the notice. The said reasoning for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be supplemented by any other extraneous material vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 . Moreover, the reason if any contained the order dated 4.2.2016 is not material and relevant. Therefore, non deduction of TDS cannot held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. 38. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 39. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing notice dated 31.3.2015 and consequently the order dated 4.2.2016 rejecting the objections of the petitioner. 40. The petition succeeds and is allowed with no orders as to costs.