M.R. SIKKA, J.M. This appeal filed by assessee company, relate to asst. yr. 1 9 73- 74. 2. original assessment of assessee was completed on 2 9 th Dec., 1 9 75 on total income of Rs. 1,25,33,350. In this assessment, ITO allowed extra shift allowance of Rs. 1,34, 9 10 in respect of following electrical machinery and installations : . Name of item . Cost Power cables & 1,4 9 (i) Rs. Transformers ,740 (ii) H. T. Cubicles Rs. 1,10, 9 1 C. I. Clad, Switch (iii) Rs. 1,25,072 Board Panels Diesel Generating set 8,08,4 (iv) Rs. and transformers 99 (v) Miscellaneous items Rs. 62,166 13,4 9 ,0 . . Rs. 94 3 . Later on, audit Department pointed out that assessee was not entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of aforesaid electrical machinery and installations under cl. III(iv) of Part I of Appendix I to IT Act, 1 9 61. relevant portion of this clause reads as follows : "The extra shift allowance shall not be allowed in respect of any item of machinery or plant which has been specifically excepted by inscription of letters "N.E.S.A." "(meaning "No Extra Shift Allowance") agaisnt it in sub-item (ii) above and also in respect of following items of machinery and plant to which general rate of depreciation of 10 per cent, applies : (1) Electrical machinery-Switchgear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant and wiring and fittings of electric light and fan installations." 4. Thereupon, ITO re-opened assessment under s. 147(b) of IT Act, 1 9 61 and withdrew extra shift allowance of Rs. 1,34, 9 10 allowed to assessee in original assessment. While doing so, ITO rejected contention of assessee that assessee had given all details and particulars of its claim in return filed by it, that ITO had discussed claim with its representative and as such he could not reopen assessment under s. 147(b) of IT Act, 1 9 61. 5 . On appeal, CIT (A) held that assessment had been validity reopened under s. 147(b) of IT Act, 1 9 61 and that ITO had rightly disallowed extra shift allowance to assessee in respect of electrical machinery and installations referred to above under aforesaid clause of IT Rules, 1 9 62. Aggrieved by this order of Department, assessee has filed present appeal. 6. After going through record and hearing ld. representative of parties, we are inclined to partly accept this appeal. 7. first contention of ld. representative of assessee before us is that ITO could not reopen assessment under s. 147(b) of IT Act. 1 9 61 on basis of objection of audit Department in view of decision of Supreme Court in case of Indian & Eastern News Papers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1 9 7 9 ) 12 CTR (SC) 1 9: (1 9 7 9 ) 11 9 ITR 99 6 (SC). We are unable to accept this contention of assessee. All that Supreme Court has held in aforesaid case is that opinion of audit party on point of law could not be regarded as "information" enabling ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings under s. 147(b). In that case, ITO had considered provisions of ss. 9 and 10 of It Act, 1 9 61, while making original assessment. Supreme Court held that any different view taken by ITO after words on application of those provisions on basis of opinion of audit Department would amount to change of opinion on material already considered by him and so assessment could not be reopened under s. 147(b). facts in present case are entirely different. In instant case, ITO did not apply his mind at all to provisions of cl. III (iv) of Part I of Appendix I to IT Rules, 1 9 62 and allowed claim of assessee in original assessment without specifically examining same under aforesaid clause. There is no material on records to hold that ITO discussed this aspect of case with she representative of assessee as contended by him. When audit Department drew attention of ITO to this omission, he re-opened assessment under s. 147(b). It is evident that audit Department did not give any opinion on any point of law and ITO did not charge his opinion on basis of opinion of audit Department. That being so, we are of view that aforesaid authority of Supreme Court is not applicable to facts of present case. ITO was justified in re-opening assessment under s. 147(b) on receiving "information" that provisions of relevant clause in question had escaped his notice while making original assessment. We, therefore, reject first objection of assessee. 8. second contention of ld. representative of assessee is that extra shift allowance is not disallowable in respect of all items of machinery referred to above. This contention is partly acceptable. (a) assessee is not entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of (i) Transformers, (ii) Switch Board Panels and (iii) C. I. Clad and Steel Clad (which are stationary plants) under cl. III (iv) of Part I of Appendix I to IT Rules, 1 9 62. (b) As regards (i) Diesel generating set and (ii) H. T. Cubicles, Tribunal has already held in case of assessee in I.T.A. No. 1287 (Bom)/1 9 80 for asst. yr. 1 9 75-76 that assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of same. We endorse this decision and allow claim of assessee in this behalf. (c) assessee is also entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of "power cables" because this item is not specifically mentioned in relevant clause which disallows extra shift allowance only in respect of "wiring and fittings of electrical light and fan installations". Our view derives support from decision of Madras High Court in case of Addl. Madras vs. Wheel & Rim Company of India (1 9 7 9 ) 118 ITR 16 (Mad). ITO will work out exact amount allowable to assessee in light of our findings. 9 . assessee has raised additional ground of appeal to effect that re-assessment made by ITO under s. 147(b) is time-barred. This being legal issue, we permit assessee to raise same at this stage. assessment under s. 143(3) was completed on 2 9 th Dec., 1 9 75. notice under s. 148 was served on assessee on 26th Aug., 1 9 77. Thus normal period of limitation under s. 153 would have expired on 25th Aug., 1 9 78. ITO forwarded draft order to IAC under s. 144B on 21st Aug., 1 9 78 and passed final order on 20th Feb., 1 9 7 9 . plea of ld. representative of assessee before us is that provisions of s. 144B are not applicable to case under s. 147 and as such, reassessment order passed by ITO on 20th Feb., 1 9 7 9 is time barred. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision of Orissa High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganeshram Nayak (1 9 81) 122 CTR (Ori) 132 : (1 9 81) 12 9 ITR 43 (Ori). We are unable to accept contention of assessee for simple reason that do not subscribe to view that provision of s. 144B are not applicable to case under s. 147. It has been held by Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Bela Singh Pabla vs. ITO (1 9 82) 1 ITD 370 (Del) (SB) that s. 144B applies to all assessments made under s. 143(3) whether by way of original assessment or as result of re-opening of assessment under s. 147. authority of Orissa High Court i.e., (1 9 81) 22 CTR (Ori) 132 : (1 9 81) 12 9 ITR 43 (Ori) cited by ld. representative of assessee does not, strictly speaking, cover present case. This authority merely lays down that expression "regular assessment" appearing in s. 273(b) of IT Act, 1 9 61 is confined to ss. 143 and 144 and does not cover assessments under s. 147 and, therefore, penalty cannot be imposed under s. 273(b) for failure to estimate and pay advance tax in assessment proceedings initiated under s. 147. It is evident that point at issue before us i.e., whether or not provisions of s. 144B are applicable to case under s. 147 was not directly before Orissa High Court for adjudication. As against this, Special Bench of Tribunal has specifically dealt with this As against this, Special Bench of Tribunal has specifically dealt with this issue in case of Bela Singh Pabla referred to above. That being so, this decision of Special Bench of Tribunal squarely covers present case. We would, therefore, follow order of Special Bench and hold that provisions of s. 144B are applicable to assessments made under s. 147. It is not in dispute that if provisions of s. 144B are held to applicable to this case, then reassessment order passed by ITO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(b) is within time. We, therefore, reject last objection of assessee. 10. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** COLOUR CHEM LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER