judgment of court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J.- This petition has been filed by assessee under section 256(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that Income-tax Tribunal be directed to make statement of case and refer following question of law in addition to one question already referred by him. " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, learned Income-tax Officer was competent to issue notice under section 147(a) before expiry of period prescribed under section 139(4)(b)(iii) of Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that notice issued by Income-tax Officer was under section 147(a) and not under section 147(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961, and so assessment was not time-barred? " It may be stated at this stage that Tribunal has referred following question to this court for its opinion. " Whether, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that case was governed by provisions of section 153(2)(a) although return was filed under section 139(4) of Income-tax Act, and as such assessment was not time-barred, and that section 153(1)(c) had no application in this case? " Tribunal, by order dated December 15, 1982, held that it was common ground between parties that no return of income was filed by assessee prior to issue of notice under section 148 of Act by Income-tax Officer. There was thus omission and failure on part of assessee to make return of his total income on account of which income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for that year. That being so, Income-tax Officer was within his rights to invoke his jurisdiction under first situation covered by section 147(a). Learned Tribunal considered provisions of clause (b) of section 147. It was held by Tribunal that clause (b) of section 147 provides that notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) of section 147 on part of assessee, Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. Under this provision, Income-tax Officer has power to invoke jurisdiction notwithstanding fact that there was no omission or failure on part of assessee in making return of his total income. Tribunal further observed that in other words, even if assessee had filed return of his income, if Income-tax Officer in consequence of information in his possession had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, he is empowered to invoke jurisdiction under clause (b). From language of clause (b), it is apparent that jurisdiction under section 147(b) can be invoked by Income-tax Officer only for purpose of reassessment and not for first assessment. We have seen order of Tribunal and as fact it has been observed by Tribunal that it was common ground between parties that no assessment had been made by Income-tax Officer earlier as assessee had not even filed return of total income nor had Income-tax Officer issued any notice under section 139(2) or even under section 148 earlier. We are thus clearly of opinion that case of assessee in facts and circumstances of this case cannot fall under section 147(b) of Income-tax Act and it falls in first situation mentioned in section 147(a) of Act. Learned counsel for assessee vehemently submitted that in order to bring case within purview of section 147(a), it was necessary for theIncome-tax Officer to hold that he had reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on part of assessee to make return under section 139 for any assessment year to Income-tax Officer, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for that year. In our view, no return at all has been filed by assessee and notice was given by Income-tax Officer under section 148 of Act and thereafter return was filed, and as such it was not case of reassessment. provisions of section 147(a) alone can thus be attracted and not section 147(b). In view of these circumstances, we do not find any error in order of learned Tribunal in not referring question for opinion of this court. reference application having no force is dismissed. *** Bhagyawanti Devi v. Commissioner of Income-tax