These cross-appeals by revenue and assessee for assessment year 1989-90 arise out of order of CIT (Appeals)-IV, Chennai. These appeals were heard together and for sake of convenience, they are disposed off by this common order. 2. first issue for consideration in assessee's appeal relates to re- opening of assessment under section 148. facts of case as apparent from record are that return of income was filed on 26-12-1989 admitting total income of Rs. 65,61,625. return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 31-3-1992 after making prima facie adjustments. Later on during course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1990-91 it was noticed that in preceding assessment year assessee-company had created provision towards unexpired warranty to tune of Rs. 21,08,550 out of sale proceeds of computers; thereby assessee-company had suppressed sales to extent o f Rs. 21,08,550. Therefore, Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1989-90. He reopened assessment by issue of notice under section 148 on 24-2-1993. No action thereafter was taken by him. Again notice under section 148 was issued on 13- 10-1995 for same reasons after obtaining approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax. Assessing Officer basis of notice issued under section 148 dated 13-10-1995, completed assessment under section 143(3)/147 on 31-3- 1997. 3. matter was agitated before ld. CIT(A) on ground that reassessment made was time-barred by limitation as Assessing Officer did not make any assessment with reference to notice issued under section 148 on 24- 2-1993. consequent assessment should have been completed by 31-3- 1995. No assessment was, however, made by 31-3-1995. Assessing Officer issued fresh notice under section 148 on 13-10-1995. This notice was bad in law as it was based on same ground i.e. provision of warranty receipts not included in sale. Consequently assessment completed on basis of invalid notice was bad in law. Before ld. CIT(A) Assessing Officer submitted that assessee's case was covered under section 149(1)(iii) and time was available up to ten years from end of relevant assessment year. That notice was issued on 24-2- 1993 and no assessment was made by 31-3-1995 would not affect validity of present reassessment as notice dated 13-10-1995 was valid in terms of section 149(1)(iii) of Act. Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions made by assessee as well as Assessing Officer held that section 153(2) does not bar assessment on basis of second notice. It merely bars any assessment on basis of first notice beyond 31-3-1995. second initiation is independent action. Therefore, Assessing Officer was justified in reopening of assessment by issue of notice dated 13-10-1995. 4. Before us, Ms. Anita Sumanth, ld. AR of assessee submitted that Assessing Officer has not taken any action on notice issued on 24-2-1993. Therefore, he was satisfied that there was no escapement of income. Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 on 13-10-1995 for same reasons. Therefore, it is case of change of opinion. She placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170. reassessment made is, therefore, not justified and deserves to be annulled. She further submitted that Assessing Officer has issued two notices under section 148. When notice under section 148 dated 13-10-1995 was issued, no fresh information came into possession of Assessing Officer. Therefore, assessment framed is bad in law. She placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Vikas Printery v. Asstt. CIT (Inv.) [2004] 270 ITR 68 and decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451. 5. On other hand Shri K. Srinivasan, ld. DR submitted that no assessment was made in response to notice issued on 24-2-1993. Under law there is no bar for issue of fresh notice. It was also submitted that first notice was not served on assessee, therefore, second notice was served. Accordingly, assessment made is valid assessment. 6. We have heard both parties and perused records available on record. Admittedly, two notices under section 148 have been issued in this case. From copy of order sheet of assessment records for assessment year 1989- 9 0 it is seen that Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 24-2- 1993, which was despatched on 26-2-1993. ld. AR of assessee has filed copy of notice under section 148 dated 24-2-1993 in support of her contention that notice was issued and served on assessee. However, when query was raised by Bench as to whether any return of income was filed in response notice under section 148, Mrs. Anita Sumanth, ld. AR of assessee failed to answer query. No evidence was filed to prove that return of income was filed in response to notice issued under section 148 on 24-2-1993. Further it is seen from order sheet that Assessing Officer did not take any action in matter probably due to oversight. After issue of notice under section 148, when n o return is filed by assessee, Assessing Officer could have issued notice under section 142(1) requiring assessee to file return of income. No such action was taken. Ultimately reassessment proceedings initiated got barred by limitation on 31-3-1995. 7. assessee has not produced any evidence to show that return of income was filed in response to notice under section 148 dated 24-2-1993. Thus inaction on part of Assessing Officer to complete assessment under section 144 in absence of return of income would not amount to forming of opinion, that there was no escapement of income. When assessee has not filed return of income, it is not correct on part of assessee to say that Assessing Officer has formed opinion in reassessment proceedings initiated by issue of notice under section 148 dated 24-2-1993. In fact Assessing Officer has not formed any opinion and cannot be said to have formed any opinion when no return of income was filed by assessee. Therefore, we are unable to agree with submissions made by ld. AR of assessee. decision of Jindal Photo Films Ltd.'s case (supra) is not applicable to facts of case before us. In that case it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that law does not require assessee to state conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from primary facts. Once that is done and assessment order framed, Assessing Officer cannot at later point of time merely on forming opinion, by giving second thought to primary facts disclosed by assessee, arrive at finding that he had committed error in computing taxable income of assessee and reopen assessment by resort to section 147 of Act. Discovery of new and important matters or resort to section 147 of Act. Discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at time of original assessment would constitute reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment within meaning of section 147. Here also such facts which could have been discovered by assessing authority but were not discovered at time of original assessment may not constitute new information. facts of case before us are entirely different. No assessment under section 143(3) consequent to reopening of assessment was framed and, therefore, decision of Hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable. assessee had not filed even return of income or any explanation based thereon it could be said that Assessing Officer applied his mind and came to conclusion that there was no escapement of income. Consequently, reliance on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Vikas Printery (supra) and decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Annamalai Finance Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. Inaction on part of Assessing Officer cannot be equated with dropping of re-assessment proceeding on ground that for purposes of dropping of proceedings application of mind and appreciation of facts is necessary. This lacks in case before us. In our view it is not case of change of opinion. 8. Under law there is no bar to issue second notice. case is to be examined whether conditions for reopening of assessment on second occasion did exist or not. Once conditions precedent is satisfied, Assessing Officer will be justified in initiating reassessment proceeding within time-limit specified under section 149. There is no restriction as to number of proceedings that can be taken to reopen assessment by way of reassessment. Assessing Officer can issue any number of notices under section 148 provided conditions stipulated in section 147 are satisfied and same is within period specified under section 149 read with section 151. However, if assessment is pending either by way of original assessment or by way of reassessment proceedings, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148. But if no proceedings are pending either by way of original assessment or by way of reassessment, he can issue notice under section 148 within time allowed under Act. On date of issue of second notice no reassessment proceedings were pending. reassessment proceeding based o n notice dated 24-2-1993 got barred by limitation on 31-3-1995. For assessment year under consideration assessment could have been reopened up to period of ten years from end of assessment year 1989-90 as specified in section 149(1)(a)(iii) of Act where income escaped was more than Rs. 1,00,000 or more. In this case condition precedent is satisfied and, therefore, in our considered view, Assessing Officer was justified in re- opening of assessment. 9. second issue for consideration in assessee's appeal relates to disallowance of provision for unexpired warranty amounting to Rs. 18,28,490. assessee made provision of Rs. 21,08,550 towards unexpired warranty n d claimed as deduction. However, Assessing Officer found that actual expenditure incurred was at Rs. 2,80,131. Assessing Officer after considering submissions made by assessee disallowed amount of Rs. 18,28,490 treating expenditure as contingent in nature. stand taken by Assessing Officer was upheld by ld. CIT(A). 10. Before us, it has been submitted that provision of Rs. 15,93,300 was made towards total sales of Rs. 12,47,66,297 for period ended 30-6-1988 and another provision of Rs. 5,15,250 was made on sales of Rs. 7,83,386. assessee was under obligation to incur expenditure during warranty period and sales were subject to provision of this warranty. As such amount was allowable as deduction. On other hand, ld. DR submitted that provisions have to be made based on scientific calculation or on actuarial basis. No such exercise was done by assessee while making provision for unexpired warranty. He placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 to his contention. 11. We have heard both parties. assessee made provision of Rs. 21,08,550 on sales effected by it to extent of about Rs. 20.30 crores, which amounts to nearly 1 per cent. No basis for making provision has been made. There is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under Income-tax Act. Expenditure which is deducted for income-tax purposes is one which is towards liability actually existing at time but putting aside of money which may become expenditure on happening of event is not expenditure. This principle was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66. 12. There is distinction between actual liability in praesenti and liability de futuro which, for time being, is contingent. former is deductible but not later. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (supra) held that if business liability has definitely arisen in accounting year, deduction should be allowed although liability may have to be quantified and discharged at future date. What should be certain is incurring of liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied, liability is not contingent one. liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at future date. It does not make any difference if future date on which liability shall have to be discharged is not certain. In case before us assessee could not produce any basis on which provision for warranty was determined. actual expenditure incurred was at Rs. 2,80,131 as against provision of Rs. 21,08,550. Therefore, it is clear that liability to extent of Rs. 18,28,490 did not accrue. provision was not made on actual quantification. Therefore, issue is covered against assessee by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (supra). In our considered view authorities below were justified in disallowing claim of assessee as contingent liability. 13. to 23. These paras are not reproduce here as they involve in minor issues. *** SRINIVASA COMPUTERS LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX