JUDGMENT : Vinod Chandran, J. The question of law raised in the above appeal is re-framed as follows: “Whether the first appellate authority and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were correct in finding a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment, when the assessee had not returned the income received as interest from deposits in Banks?” 2. The assessment year is 1994-95; for which regular assessment was completed as per Annexure-A1 dated 03.01.1997. Later, after four years, as stipulated in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proceedings for re-assessment were taken on grounds of escapement of income alleging non-disclosure of full and true material facts necessary for assessment; within six years. The Assessing Officer included the interest income of Rs.34,51,954/-, which was not earlier returned, to carry out a re-assessment as is seen from Annexure-A. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue would contend that the interest income which was taxed on re-assessment was never disclosed by the assessee. The assessee had filed a return of income for the subject assessment year disclosing a total income of Rs.3,14,050/-. What was so disclosed was also interest income, since the assessee had not commenced production in the subject year. Only later, the interest income amounting to almost Rs.38,35,504/- was revealed, which was not returned. It was hence a notice was issued under Section 148 for re-assessment on the allegation of non-disclosure of full and true material facts. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee would however contend that full disclosure was made in the profit and loss account, which was available with the Assessing Officer. It is also argued that the reason for re-assessment was the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) [Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd v.CIT]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 11 SCC 373 [Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd.] had categorically held that a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court cannot lead to a re-assessment proceedings especially on the allegation of non-disclosure of full and material facts. The learned counsel also relied on (1961) 2 SCR 241 [Calcutta Discount Co. The learned counsel also relied on (1961) 2 SCR 241 [Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta] to contend that the assessee had disclosed everything possible and it could not be asked to point out the inferences, which could be drawn from the material facts placed before the Assessing Officer, as has been held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by majority. 5. The first appellate authority found that the balance sheet under Schedule-IV mentions the 'interest income net of income tax' as Rs.34,51,954/-. A foot note in the statement of total income also was relied on to hold that the assessee had nothing left to be disclosed as a further primary fact. A number of decisions were cited and it was held that there could be no allegation of non-disclosure of full and material facts alleged against the assessee for the subject assessment year. The Tribunal too concurred with the first appellate authority and found that in Section 147 proceedings, the balance sheet, more particularly, Schedule-IV was referred to allege the non-disclosure, which was already available with the A.O. at the time of regular assessment. 6. The respondent/assessee has produced Annexure-A1 assessment order. A reading of the assessment order indicates that the return was filed only declaring a total income of Rs.3,14,050/-. The Accounts Officer of the Company appeared and contended that the return of income was a mistake committed; on misconception of law, especially since the assessee had un-utilized funds obtained by way of loans and advances from financial institutions and others, which were kept in short term deposits. The interest income so obtained from the short term deposits was only to be set off against the interest liability in the various loans and advances, was the argument. The assessee had also not commenced production in the previous year to the assessment year and there was no revenue receipts available to the assessee. The contentions were rejected and Annexure-A1 assessment order passed determining total income on that returned and levying tax thereof. There could then be no further reassessment made making additions to taxable income; of interest income which could have been done at the time of regular assessment, is the argument. 7. The contentions were rejected and Annexure-A1 assessment order passed determining total income on that returned and levying tax thereof. There could then be no further reassessment made making additions to taxable income; of interest income which could have been done at the time of regular assessment, is the argument. 7. We do not see anything from the order at Annexure-A to indicate that the Assessing Officer was apprised of the fact of there being interest income in addition to that disclosed in the return. The contentions raised were only with respect to the income returned and though the very same contentions were available against the interest income that was not disclosed in the return, there is no reference made to that by the Accounts Officer of the assessee. In this context, we have to notice Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), in which reassessment was proceeded with on the allegation of non-disclosure of full and true materials. 8. The allegation in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra) was with respect to the non-disclosure of the assessee having indulged in regular business of trading in shares. The assessee had produced the audited accounts, in which the sale of shares were expressly mentioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found so in paragraph 21: “21. The assessment orders it is true do not mention the details of the sales. They state however that the audited accounts of the Company were furnished. The sales of shares were expressly mentioned in the report. In these circumstances it is reasonable to believe that as regards sale of shares full details were in fact disclosed”. 9. There, the assessee was an investment Company and originally the Assessing Officer had considered the sale of shares as only a change in investment. However, the transactions as carried out by the assessee were fully disclosed in the books of accounts and also the audited accounts, which were before the Assessing Officer. It was easily discernible that there was a regular trading in shares by the assessee and hence, the Supreme Court found that there could not have been an allegation raised validly, against the assessee that there was non-disclosure of full and true material facts. 10. It was easily discernible that there was a regular trading in shares by the assessee and hence, the Supreme Court found that there could not have been an allegation raised validly, against the assessee that there was non-disclosure of full and true material facts. 10. In this context, we have to refer to paragraph 9, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court contemplated a possible contention of production of books of accounts and other evidence and an assertion made by the assessee that the Income Tax Officer ought to have employed due diligence and discovered further facts as available from the books of accounts. The Hon'ble Judges referred to Section 64 and the Explanation therein, which specified the production of books of accounts or other evidence before the ITO from which material facts could be discovered by due diligence which would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the said Section. Explanation-I, in patri materia; is still available under Section 147. 11. Calcutta Discount Co. (supra) and the instant appeal are clearly distinguishable. There the share transactions were disclosed and the same was taken account of by the Assessing Officer and were found to be casual transactions in the regular assessment. In the instant case the assessee raised a contention that the interest income returned was so returned only on a misconception of law. The deduction claimed of the interest income returned, from the computation of total income was rejected in the regular assessment. The interest income was determined as taxable income. This inference/reasoning applied to the further interest income available in the books of accounts but not disclosed in the return. If the said income had been pointed out to the A.O. then the inference would have been the same in regular assessment. Explanation-I to Section 147 squarely applies. 12. We extract the dictum of the decision as available in para 8, 9, 10 & 13, herein below, which if applied to the facts of the instant appeal, will stand against the assessee: “8. Before we proceed to consider the materials on record to see whether the appellant has succeeded in showing that the Income Tax Officer could have no reason, on the materials before him, to believe that there had been any omission to disclose material facts, as mentioned in the section, it is necessary to examine the precise scope of disclosure which the section demands. The words used are “omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year”. It postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. What facts are material, and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. In every assessment proceeding, the assessing authority will, for the purpose of computing or determining the proper tax due from an assessee, require to know all the facts which help him in coming to the correct conclusion. From the primary facts in his possession, whether on disclosure by the assessee, or discovered by him on the basis of the facts disclosed, or otherwise - the assessing authority has to draw inferences as regards certain other facts; and ultimately, from the primary facts and the further facts inferred from them, the authority has to draw the proper legal inferences, and ascertain on a correct interpretation of the taxing enactment, the proper tax leviable. Thus, when a question arises whether certain income received by an assessee is capital receipt, or revenue receipt, the assessing authority has to find out what primary facts have been proved, what other facts can be inferred from them, and taking all these together, to decide what the legal inference should be. 9. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee. To meet a possible contention that when some account books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the Income Tax Officer might have discovered, the legislature has put in the Explanation, which has been set out above. To meet a possible contention that when some account books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the Income Tax Officer might have discovered, the legislature has put in the Explanation, which has been set out above. In view of the Explanation, it will not be open to the assessee to say, for example - “I have produced the account books and the documents: You, the assessing officer examine them, and find out the facts necessary for your purpose: My duty is done with disclosing these account-books and the documents.” His omission to bring to the assessing authority’s attention these particular items in the account books, or the particular portions of the documents, which are relevant, amount to “omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment.” Nor will he be able to contend successfully that by disclosing certain evidence, he should be deemed to have disclosed other evidence, which might have been discovered by the assessing authority if he had pursued investigation on the basis of what has been disclosed. The Explanation to the section, gives a quietus to all such contentions; and the position remains that so far as primary facts are concerned, it is the assessee’s duty to disclose all of them - including particular entries in account books, particular portions of documents and documents, and other evidence, which could have been discovered by the assessing authority, from the documents and other evidence disclosed. 10. Does the duty however extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else - far less the assessee - to tell the assessing authority what inferences whether of facts or - law should be drawn. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences - whether of facts or law he would draw from the primary facts. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences - whether of facts or law he would draw from the primary facts. xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. We have therefore come to the conclusion that while the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, it does not extend beyond this”. (emphasis in the form of underlining supplied by us) 13. in Calcutta Discount Co. the assessee had disclosed the profit obtained on sale of shares and securities. The ITO accepted the version that the sale of shares are casual transactions, in the nature of change of investments. The results of the Company's trading showed a systematic trade from year-to-year. This aspect was definitely something coming within the inference made by the Assessing Officer, as to the trading in shares and securities being a casual transaction. There cannot be alleged any non-disclosure of material facts. In the instant case however, at the risk of repetition, it has to be stated that the assessee had returned interest from deposits, as income in the return but had not disclosed the entire income so received. On the basis of the return it was contended that the interest income cannot be taken to determine the taxable income; which contention was specifically rejected by the Assessing Officer. As was noticed above the further income received as interest, available in the profit and loss account was not disclosed in the returns and by virtue of Explanation-1 this results in nondisclosure of material facts. There cannot be alleged any inference having not been made at the regular assessment, since even in the regular assessment the inference of the Assessing Officer was that the interest income has to be computed in the taxable income. 14. In the above circumstance, the assessee could not have claimed that the Assessing Officer ought to have employed due diligence and found out the further interest income from Bank deposits, which were not returned, but available in the books of accounts. This disclosure, going by the Explanation-I to Section 147, has to be made by the assessee in the return. In the above circumstance, the assessee could not have claimed that the Assessing Officer ought to have employed due diligence and found out the further interest income from Bank deposits, which were not returned, but available in the books of accounts. This disclosure, going by the Explanation-I to Section 147, has to be made by the assessee in the return. That details were available in the books of accounts or the balance sheet or profit and loss account cannot absolve the assessee from a true and correct disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. We are of the opinion that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal went wrong in finding that the facts of the case indicate full and true disclosure of facts which are necessary for assessment in the subject assessment year. 15. One another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee was that the reassessment was made based on Tuticorin Alkalies & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra), which is not possible, going by Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (supra). In Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a re-opening of assessment made purely on the basis of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, true, after regular assessment and after notice for reassessment was issued, there was a Supreme Court judgment finding the interest income received even before the commencement of production would be income from other sources. But, that decision is not the cause for the aforesaid reopening. It is only in the assessment order as seen from Annexure-A that the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to further sustain the re-assessment of undisclosed income to tax. The Assessing Officer, later to the regular assessment, saw from the P&L account that there was further income by way of interest from deposits, which had not been disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. This was the reason for issuance of notice of reassessment, for bringing to tax income that escaped assessment within the six year period. The limitation of 4 years would not be applicable, since the specific allegation, which we have found to be correct, is of non-disclosure of full and true material facts necessary for assessment. We answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The limitation of 4 years would not be applicable, since the specific allegation, which we have found to be correct, is of non-disclosure of full and true material facts necessary for assessment. We answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.