This is departmental appeal against order of AAC for asst. yr., 1978-79. In this case, assessment was originally made under s. 143(3) but subsequently reopened under s. 147(b) in view of fact that income from house property was under assessed. In original assessment, income from house property was shown at Rs. 2050 and accepted as such. ITO estimated income from that source at Rs. 41,359 under s.147(b). In his opinion, entire property was not under self occupation of assessee as some areas were also occupied by sons who had independent source of income and were under their absolute possession. He was of view that only 1/3rd of property which was used for himself, his wife and for stay of casual visitors and relations can be said to be occupied by assessee for purposes of his residence. He, therefore, included 2/3rd in annual letting value which are not under self occupation of assessee, by estimating A.L.V. of that portion at R s . 41,000. For remaining of 1/3rd which he had considered was under assessee's occupation. He estimated same at 10 per cent of other income of assessee. Id. A.A.C., however, accepted submission made on behalf of assessee that s. 147(b) did not lay under circumstances of case. He was of opinion that it was mere change of opinion on part of ITO. He Followed decision of Supreme Court in case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO, Companies District I, Calcutta, & Anr. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). He also followed other decisions which were narrated in IT law by Charturvedi and Pithisaria at page 1687. He also noted that assessee had shown house property income on basis of ALV determined on municipal valuation which was accepted by Deptt. Till Asst. yr. 1979-80. He further pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Patna in assessee's case in asst. yr. 1969-70 reported in Kashi Prasad Kataruka vs. CIT 1975 CTR (Pat) 63: (1975) 101 ITR 810 (Pat) also held that municipal valuation is correct indication for determine A.L.V. of property. He, therefore, inter alia had decided case in favour of assessee that proceedings under s. 147(b) did not arise under circumstances of case. Id. Departmental representative on other hand, pointed out that after original assessment was completed, from investigation it was found entire property was not self occupied as laid down under s. 23 (2) of IT Act, 1961 by assessee. He submitted property within provisions of s. 23(2) was only property where assessee, his wife, sons, dependent on assessee reside. He pleaded that part of property which was used by t h e sons who had independent source of income could not be treated as occupied by assessee. He tried to distinguish decisions followed by AAC by observing that those were cases where proceedings under s. 147(1)(A) were initiated. He clarified, in this case, assessee did not give full particulars about occupancy of property and these information were only available to ITO after original assessment was completed. He urged estimate of ALV made by ITO was also reasonable in view of situation and covered area of building. Id. AR, on other hand, submitted that upto asst. yr. 1979-80 Municipal Valuation was taken as ALV in assessee's case. net income shown in return was on this ALV. He, therefore, argued any variation made b y ITO from admitted municipal valuation was merely change of opinion. He also pointed out dispute about interpretation of self occupied property had been settled by Tribunal in its order dt. 2nd May, 1985 in ITA No. 1105 (Pat)/1983 in respect of asst. yr. 1980-81. We have considered rival submissions made by both parties. It is not disputed in these property assessee alongwith his wife and sons leaving even though sons are having independent source of income. In case of CIT vs. Raai Kaniz Abid, 1972 ILR 587 where it was held even when properties are in occupation by son-in-law and married daughter but kept ready for occupation of assessee though she did not reside therein can still be treated as self occupied property. It was not case of ITO that assessee was charging rent from their sons who were under occupation of some portion of property. It was also not found by ITO that assessee could not get control of those portions as and when it was required by assessee. Without these finding it was difficult to differ from decision of Tribunal, we hold that entire property learned Tribunal in assessee's case mentioned above. Respectfully following decision of were under self occupation of assessee and to be considered under s. 23(2) of IT Act, 1961. As we have already held net income shown by assessee in respect of property was according to s.23(2) on basis Municipal Valuation which was decided as correct indication of AlV by Hon'ble High Court of Patna in assessee's case for asst. yr. 1969-70, income shown and assessed by ITO in original assessment cannot be said to be under-assessed. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to turn on part of controversy of applicability of s. 147(b) as there is no under assessment in this case. appeal is, therefore, dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KASHI PRASAD KATARUKA