P.L.MOHAN SINGH, J.M.: This appeal of assessee relate to asst. yr. 1981-82 and arises out of order of AAC, of IT Trinvandrum, dt. 17th Dec., 1985. assessee has taken two grounds in this appeal. first ground is that AAC erred in concluding that action under s. 143(2)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') initiated by ITO was valid. second ground taken by assessee is that AAC erred in holding that sale of agricultural land situated in Alleppey municipal limits gives rise to capital gains. original assessment in this case was completed under s. 143(1) on 30th April, 1983 on total income of Rs. 33,700. After completion of original assessment, same has been reopened under s. 143(2) for bringing t o tax capital gains arising on sale of agricultural land belonging to assessee and situated inside urban area. On appeal before AAC it was contended by learned counsel for assessee that sale of agricultural land within municipal limits of Alleppey has been brought to notice of ITO by means of statement accompanying return. assessee has also claimed that no capital gains arose in this case in light of Bombay High Court decision in case of Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar, ITO (1981) 2 2 CTR (Bom) 14: (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom). He contended that since these facts were within ITO's knowledge and since he came to finding that assessee's statements were acceptable there was no scope for fresh look at matter. After hearing learned counsel for assessee, AAC held that reopening of assessment under s. 143(2)(b) is in order as, according to him , original assessment was completed under s.143(1) as summary assessment and ITO has merely converted summary assessment into scrutiny assessment. This could be done irrespective of disclosures made at then s, 143(1) stage. He observed that action under s. 143(2) (b) could not be equated with action under s. 147(a) or 147(b) of Act. With regard to other grounds raised by assessee that no capital gains would arise in view of ratio of Bombay High Court decision in Manubhai A. Sheth's case (1981) 22 CTR (Bom) 41: (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) AAC held that asset sold by assessee was urban land and since it is capital asset, sale of capital asset would give rise to capital gains and ratio of Bombay High Court decision relied upon by assessee was not applicable to facts of case. As against this order of AAC assessee is in appeal before us. In support of first ground raised by assessee, learned counsel contended that on analysis of language of s. 143(2) (b) certain inherent conditions for issue of notice are to be satisfied. These are (a) on basis of assessment records ITO finds that return is incomplete or incorrect, or (b) ITO has some information or material in his possession on basis of which he may doubt correctness or completeness of return. If none of these conditions exists then issue of notice under s. 143(2) (b) only on basis of ITO's sweet will is neither justified not permissible under provisions of Act. It is so because in terms of s. 143(2) (b) ITO is empowered to verify correctness and completeness of return only and not correctness of assessment order or assessed income. He further contended that failure on part of ITO to take into account adjustment narrated in cl.(b) of s. 143(1) does not lead to belief that return on basis of which assessment has been completed under s. 143(1) is incorrect and incomplete. According to him, intention of legislature in enacting provisions of s. 143(2) (b) was that powers under s. 143(2) (b) should be exercised only if ITO has some information or material with him about correctness or completeness of return. legislature while enacting s. 143(2) (b) has used words 'considers' , necessary' and 'expedient'. word 'consider' signifies that before arriving at conclusion to verify correctness and completeness of return by requiring presence of assessee or production of evidence in this behalf , ITO should have some cogent material or information which is implied condition on basis of which verification of correctness and completeness of return can be said to be necessary or expedient. In this case, counsel contended that assessee has sold agricultural land and claimed capital gains from such sale as exempt has been disclosed in enclosure to return and theses facts being within knowledge of ITO before passing order under s. 143(1), reopening of assessment by ITO under s. 143(2)(b) is bad in law. On merits, he relied upon decision of this Bench of Tribunal in case of D. Ramarajan Nair vs. ITO (IT Appeal No. 414 (Coch) of 1985, dt. 6th Nov., 1985, wherein Tribunal, following decision of Bombay High Court, in case of Manubhai A. Sheth (1981) 22 CTR (Bom) 41: (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) held that even sale of agricultural land even situated within municipal limits will not give rise to capital gain tax. learned Departmental representative, on other hand, contended before us that assessment made under s. 143(1) being summary assessment, ITO is fully empowered to reopen assessment under s. 143(2) (b). He further contended before us that wrong claim made by assessee in return of income itself makes return incorrect and ITO is fully justified in reopening summary assessment completed by him under s. 143(2) (b) of IT Act. He, therefore, supported order of AAC. We have carefully considered facts and circumstances of case, material on record and arguments advanced by both sides. On perusal of enclosure to return filed by assessee, it is seen that he has given value of 1 acre 15.325 cents of land sold at Rs. 42,250 and immediately below this he has mentioned that no capital gains arose in view of judgement of Bombay High Court. From this it is clear that fact that assessee has sold agricultural land and claimed capital gains from such sale as exempt has been disclosed by assessee in enclosure, to return. Only after filing return and in enclosure ITO has completed assessment under s. 143(1) on 30th April, 1983. ITO can invoke provisions of s. 143(2) (b) only if consider it necessary or expedient to verify correctness and completeness of return. This implies that after completing assessment, ITO should have come in possession of some information about correctness and completeness of return. Only after ITO is satisfied that return filed by assessee is incorrect and incomplete he may invoke provisions of s. 143(2) (b). In this case, as already pointed out earlier, fact of sale and amount realised by assessee by such sale and fact as how assessee is entitled to claim exemption have been brought to notice of ITO in enclosure to return. Since return filed by assessee was neither incorrect nor incomplete reopening of assessment by ITO under s. 143(2)(b) , in our opinion is not permissible and, therefore, bad in law. AAC while deciding merits of case has given therefore, bad in law. AAC while deciding merits of case has given finding that land sold by assessee is urban land. On perusal of assessment order, it is seen that ITO has given categorical finding that capital gains arising to assessee from transfer of urban agricultural land is liable to tax. From this it is clear that ITO disallowed claim of assessee only on ground that land sold, though, agricultural, gains arising out of sale is not entitled to exemption as land sold is urban land. Since ITO himself has given finding that it is agricultural land, finding of AAC is that it not agricultural land, is without any basis. We have been consistently following decision of Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sehth's case (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom). High Court and order of this Bench of Tribunal in case D. Ramarajan Nair's (IT Appeal No. 414 (Coch) of 1985 dt. 6th Nov., 1985) we hold that land being agricultural land sale of this agricultural land will not give rise to capital gains. In result, assessee's appeal is allowed. *** R. KRISHANARJUNAN v. INCOME TAX OFFICER