assessee has come up in appeal for asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1976-77. In all appeal, issues involved are common, and, therefore, are disposed of by means of this common order. On behalf of assessee, Mr. Anil Harish, ld. Representative, pointed out that assessments were-reopened under s. 147(a) after obtaining sanction of CIT, Bombay. only ground for re-opening was set off carry forward of deficiency on account of 80J was wrong. In revised assessment orders, ITO mentions that in order to make claim under s. 80J, industrial undertaking must be (i) separate unit and (ii) books of accounts maintained separately. Since books of account were not maintained separately, considerations were not fulfilled. Therefore, claim that was allowed to assessee earlier was wrong and, therefore, it was withdrawn, Mr. Harish submitted copies of original assessments orders for all years. original assessment have been filed by him for asst. yr. 1970-71 at p. 11 to 14, for asst. yr. 1972-73 at pp. 29 to 32, for 1973-74 at pp. 42 to 46 and for 1976-77 at pp. 57 to 59. Our attention was drawn to finding of ITO in original orders. observation of ITO in assessment order for 1970-71 runs as under: "There is not separate balance-sheet for solvent extraction plant. Therefore, assessee was specifically asked to work out capital employed in this plant as per Rule 19A. Looking to balance-sheet for earlier year, I find that if capital is to be found out, it will be minus figure." In 1972-73, observations are that this allowance has been disallowed in past and reason for same have been discussed at length in previous years. In 1976-77, observation are: "The assessee has expressed its inability to maintain books of accounts for unit. In order, therefore, to arrive at capital employed in Unit has taken actual capital invested in Building and Machinery, and running expenses on basis of turnover. There could be not dispute about capital actually invested in building and Machinery particularly when individual capital of its own was available with firm. assessee has worked out profits for this unit on basis of difference in profits between crude and refined varieties of solvent. This fairly accurate method of calculation. In these circumstances, claim under s. 80-J came to accepted. It was pointed out to p. 22. ITO made order s. 154 wherein it was clearly observed that "the assessee is not maintaining separate books of account in respect of new industrial undertaking." calculation which were given to ITO were verified and thereafter he passed rectification order. rectification order are at pp. 22, 36, 54, 55 of paperbook for asst. yrs. 1970-71, 197-23 and 1976- 77. Mr. Harish, pointed out that notices under s. 148 for asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74 were issued on 29th March, 1979 and for asst. yrs. 1976- 77 on 30th March, 1981. Mr. Harish, pointed that assessments came to be re-opened in view of audit objection as clearly mentioned in assessment orders passed under s. 143(3) read with s. 148. Mr. Harish read through provisions of s. 80J, and he submitted that s. 80J, does not mention anywhere regarding accounts to be maintained separately in respect of each industrial unit. fact that assessee was not keeping separate books of account was known to ITO as already observed earlier. He was, therefore, of view that there was not information which could have led to reopening of assessments under s. 147(a). entire proceeding was bad in law. Mr. Mahadeshwar for department relied on orders of authorities below. We have heard rival arguments of parties. We have already brought out while narrating facts as submitted by Mr. Harish, ld. Representative of assessee, that ITO was fully aware of fact that assessee was not maintaining separate books of account in respect of solvent extraction unit. This is borne out by ITO's own admission in rectification order passed by him as well as in assessment order itself. On facts alone, therefore, action of ITO was bad. In view of fact that ITO was in full knowledge that no separate accounts were maintained and after examining claim of assessee under s. 80J, he had allowed same, it would, therefore, be case not falling under s. 147(a). Court have very clearly held that for application of 147(a), two distinctive conditions must be satisfied and they are: (a) ITO must have reason no believe that such income has escaped assessment, and (b) ITO, must have reason to believe that escapement is by reason of omission or failure o part of assessee to made return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for relevant year. In instant case both conditions have not been satisfied. fact that assessee did not maintain separate book of account for solvent extraction unit was disclosed by assessee and recorded as such by ITO i n his order. Therefore, there is no concealment of income on part of assessee as well. We therefore, annual assessments made by ITO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 148 for above years. In result, in appeal of assessee are fully allowed. *** ALIMCHAND TOPANDAS v. ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX OFFICER