These two appeals filed by same assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience. 2. assessee is partnership firm deriving income from business as distributor of cinematograph films. These two appeals relate to assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. In assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, ITO had allowed only portion of cost of films released during those years and balance was allowed in subsequent two years. Thus, in respect of films released in assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, ITO had allowed as deduction cost of films to tune of Rs. 8,77,000 in assessment year 1972-73. Similarly, in assessment year 1973-74, ITO had allowed sum of Rs. 1,08,200 as deduction in respect of film released in assessment year 1971-72. This was position in original assessments made by ITO for assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. assessee had gone on appeal in assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to Tribunal claiming that entire cost of films released in those years should have been allowed as deduction. Originally, Tribunal had rejected claim of assessee. However, on miscellaneous application filed by assessee pointing out certain circulars in favour of assessee, Tribunal in their order in Misc. Application Nos. 120 and 121 (Cal.) of 1980 dated 3-9-1982 for assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 modified their original order and allowed contention of assessee. In other words, Tribunal allowed entire cost of films as deduction in year of release itself by their order dated 3-9-1982. This is what Tribunal observed in their order dated 3-9-1982 in aforesaid miscellaneous applications. "Accordingly, we direct ITO to amortise films on basis of guidelines given in Circular No. 30 dated 4-10-1969 [F. No. 9/8069-IT (A-II)] issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi." It may be stated that according to earlier circular, cost of films was being allowed in three consecutive years at rate of 60 per cent, 25 per cent and 15 per cent. As stated earlier, ITO had allowed cost of films released in assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 on above footing so that some portion of cost of such films became allowable in assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Subsequently, by virtue of order dated 3-9-1982 of Tribunal, entire cost of films released in 1970-71 and 1971-72 was allowed in those years themselves so that nothing more remained to be allowed in any of two subsequent years. Since aforesaid sums stood allowed as per original assessments for years 1972-73 and 1973-74, ITO took action under section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in order to withdraw those allowances in assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. In reassessments made for those years, ITO withdrew aforesaid allowances as they had already been allowed in earlier years of release. ITO completed reassessments accordingly. 3. assessee appealed to Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that ITO erred in his decision. It was urged that ITO did not take permission of Commissioner before taking action under section 147 and so orders of ITO were bad. Secondly, it was urged that assessments were barred by limitation because of provisions of section 149 of Act. assessee urged that there was no direction or finding of Tribunal and so provisions of section 150(1) of Act did not apply to facts of this case. Commissioner (Appeals) considered contentions of assessee but did not agree with them. He found that notices under section 148 of Act for two years under appeal were served on 11-6-1984 and reassessments were made on 11-9-1984. Section 150(1) empowers ITO to issue notice under section 148 at any time for purpose of making reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in order of any appellate authority under Act. According to Commissioner (Appeals) time limit stated in section 149 was removed in cases coming under section 150(1). Such cases are also outside purview of section 151(2) of Act and no prior permission need be taken in such cases. He also held that reassessment orders under consideration were passed in consequence of or to give effect to directions of Tribunal as contained in their order dated 3-9-1982 and so reassessment orders as passed by ITO did not suffer from any defect. In this view of matter, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeals. 4. Shri S. Bhattacharjee, learned representative for assessee, urged before us that revenue authorities erred in their decision. He stated that notice under section 148 can be only under section 147(b) as assessee did not conceal any particulars necessary for its assessment. notice was issued more than four years after end of previous years under consideration. Section 151(2) empowers issue of notice after four years provided prior permission of Commissioner or Board is taken in this regard. As no such permission has been taken, orders of ITO were bad i n law. Next, he referred to Explanation 2 to section 153(3) of Act and urged that it was not open to department to take help of same because it speaks of exclusion of income whereas Tribunal was dealing with allowance of expenses. Further, according to him, there was no direction or finding given by Tribunal in their order dated 3-9-1982. He contended that valid direction or finding is one which was necessary to dispose of appeal before Tribunal. Since it was not necessary for Tribunal in assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to direct withdrawal of allowances given in assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and since Tribunal has not, in fact, given any such direction, he urged that provisions of section 150(1) did not apply to facts of this case. He relied on decision in cases of ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC) and Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14 (SC) in support of his contentions. Under circumstances, he urged that orders of reassessment passed by ITO deserved to be cancelled. 5. Shri S.K. Lahiri, learned representative for department, on other hand, supported orders of Commissioner (Appeals). He stated that Tribunal has clearly given direction to ITO in their order dated 3-9-1982 to allow full cost of films released in those years. According to him, this amounted to direction within meaning of Explanation 2 to section 153. When Tribunal states that certain expenses should be allowed it means that income has to be reduced for that year. reason given by Tribunal for such reduction of income was that entire cost and not merely portion thereof is allowable during that year. Consequently, allowance which had been allowed in subsequent years and which reduced income of subsequent years had to be withdrawn as consequence of or while giving effect to order of Tribunal dated 3-9-1982. Hence, aforesaid Explanation did apply to facts of case and so limitation did not apply because of section 150(1). For same reason, he urged that necessity to take prior permission of Commissioner has been dispensed with. In this connection, he referred to decision in case of B.A.R. Abdul Rahman Saheb v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 541 (AP) wherein it has been held that in case to which section 150 applies necessity for taking sanction of Commissioner does not apply. 6. We have considered contentions of both parties as well as facts on record. At outset, we may say that notice under section 148 does not say that it has been issued under section 147(a) or 147(b). If, as contended by learned representative for assessee, it has been issued under section 147(b), there would be need to take prior permission of Commissioner. If, on other hand, it has been issued under section 147(a) then, permission of authorities mentioned in section 150(1) is not necessary, as has been decided in case of B.A.R. Abdul Rahman Saheb (supra) provided facts of case are covered by section 150(1) says that notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for purpose of making reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in order passed by any appellate authority. aforesaid Explanation states that if any income is excluded from total income of assessee for assessment year, then, assessment of such income for another assessment year shall be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in said order for purpose of section 150. We find that Tribunal in their order dated 3-9-1982 for earlier assessment years have clearly directed to deduct higher amount. In other words, Tribunal allowed in those years certain extra expenses that had been allowed by ITO in subsequent years. It is evident that Tribunal directed ITO to allow more expenses and thus excluded same from total income. In our opinion, this order of Tribunal amounted to direction within meaning of section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 to section 153. When entire expense has been allowed in earlier years, same could not again be allowed in subsequent year. withdrawal of expenses in subsequent years was directly connected with consequence of direction given in order dated 3-9-1982. Hence we come to conclusion that order of Tribunal dated 3-9-1982 did contain direction. orders of reassessment for years now under consideration before us have been passed in consequence of or to give effect to said direction of Tribunal. Hence, time limits for making assessment as laid down in section 149 or necessity to take sanction as provided for in section 150(1) did not apply to facts of this case. In view of our factual finding as above, case laws relied upon by learned representative for assessee do not apply to facts and circumstances of present case. Under circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in orders of reassessment and hold that they are not barred by limitation, as contended by assessee. We uphold orders of revenue authorities for both years under consideration. 7. In result, two appeals are dismissed. *** DOSSANI FILMS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER