These appeals by assessee and revenue relate to reassessments for assessment years 1962-63 and 1966-67 to 1968-69. assessments were reopened by ITO to include in total income of assessee; interest accrues on loans in 'court account'. assessee had not included in its return interest on those advances where it had resorted to legal proceedings against defaulters for recovery of interest. This was on ground that realization of interest was not certain. According to ITO, assessee had concealed income in returns filed by it at time of original assessments by not including interest on such sticky advances. reassessments were completed adding interest accrued on such loans to income originally assessed. assessee went in appeal. It challenged reopening of assessments. One ground was that case did not fall under section 147(a) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as assessee had not failed to disclose primary materials necessary for completion of its assessments. Another ground was that concealment, if any, related to Syndicate Bank Ltd. before it was nationalised on 31-3-1970. old bank still existed. ITO could have taken action against old bank and not against successor. Reliance was placed on section 5(5) of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and also section 170 of 1961 Act. Commissioner (Appeals) held that reopening was justified. He mainly proceeded on ground that ITO could entertain reasonable belief that interest on sticky loans was justifiably includible in total income of erstwhile Syndicate Bank Ltd. and failure on its part to so include interest in its taxable income led to concealment of income of reopening of assessment. However, on merits, following decision of Tribunal for assessment year 1974-75, he deleted addition. revenue has come up in appeal on merits of deletion of interest on sticky loans while assessee has come up in appeal against merits of reopening of assessment. 2. It was argued by learned counsel for assessee that section 5(5) of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with section 170 of 1961 Act clearly precluded action against present Syndicate Bank Ltd. with regard to roping in any escaped income of erstwhile Syndicate Bank Ltd. learned departments representative, on other hand, submitted that since entire business of erstwhile bank was taken over by assessee, section 5(1) was applicable. He stressed that all borrowings, liabilities and obligations of whatever kind of erstwhile bank were transferred to new bank. obligation and liabilities also included payment of proper taxes and as such reaping was justified. learned counsel for assessee, however, relied on section 5(5) which protected only existing litigation and not future proceedings. learned departmental representative also submitted that old Syndicate Bank Ltd. says its banking business had been amalgamated with some other concern. It was no longer in existence. Recourse to section 170 was not necessary in this case at all as section 5(1) was wide enough to empower ITO to collect taxes which have been evaded by erstwhile banking company. 3. Section 5(1) and section 5(5) are as follows: "General effect of vesting. -(1) undertaking of each existing bank shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, movable and immovable, cash balances, reserve funds, investments and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were immediately before commencement of this Act in ownership, possession, power or control of existing bank in relation to undertaking, whether within or without India, and all books of account, registers, records, and all other documents of whatever nature relating thereto and shall also be deemed to included all borrowings, liabilities and obligations of whatever kind then subsisting of existing bank in relation to undertaking. (5) If, on appointed day, any suit, appeal or other proceeding o f whatever nature in relation to any business of undertaking which has been transferred under section 4, is pending by or against existing bank, same shall not abate, be discontinued or be, in in any way, prejudicially affected by reason of transfer of undertaking of existing bank or of anything contained in this Act but suit, appeal or other proceeding may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against corresponding new bank." 4. Although learned counsel's arguments as regards interpretation o f section 5(5) are correct, we have to agree with learned departmental representative that section 5(1) gave wide powers to ITO to collect from new bank correct amount of tax which erstwhile banking company was under obligation to pay. There is obligation on every assessee to pay correct amount of tax due from it. obligation cannot abate by virtue of succession to its business. Although quantification of this obligation might come later, there was no cessation of its liability. Support for this proposition can be had from decision of Supreme Court in case of Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji v. CWT [1981] 129 ITR 314. In that case, it was held that extra tax which became payable on later date consequent on voluntary disclosure by assessee relating to concealment of income for earlier years, was liability deductible from net wealth on valuation dates relevant to such earlier years. Recourse to section 170 is not necessary in this case. Since Tribunal should not be unduly influenced by procedural technicalities in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC), we hold that provisions of section 5(1) override provisions of section 170. Following above decision of Supreme Court, we hold that proceedings can be taken against successor of erstwhile bank for assessing escaped income of latter. 5. It, however, remains for us to find out whether conditions for application of section 147(a) are satisfied. It seems that assessee had changed over to new method of accounting where interest on accrued loans was not included in profit and loss account. It is claimed that this was position even in 1953. balance sheets and profit and loss account filed along with return of income would also indicate that assessee was not taking into account such interest as part of profit. For assessment year 1970-71 assessee had clearly brought this point to notice of ITO. We have also gone through reasons record by ITO in connection with reopening of assessments. These do not indicate that there was failure on part of assessee in disclosing true and correct particulars of income. In fact, in IT Appeal No. 126 (Bang.) of 1983 dated 11-12-1984, we held that reopening of assessment was bad. It is not for assessee to indicated what conclusions are to be drawn from materials disclosed by it before ITO. If material is there and ITO fails to draw correct conclusions, it is not possible to say that there was failure on part of assessee to disclose primary materials necessary for completion of assessment, e.g., Supreme Court decision in case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 further reiterated in ITO v. Madnani Engg. Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1. On these grounds, we hold that reopening under section 147(a) was not valid. 6. assessee's appeals are allowed. 7. We have held in our earlier orders that on merits, interest on sticky loans cannot be included in total income of assessee. 8. appeals filed by revenue are, accordingly, dismissed. *** SYNDICATE BANK v. INCOME TAX OFFICER