These four appeals by assessee arise out of common order passed b y learned CIT(A) on 20th Dec., 2006 in relation to asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. Since all these appeals are based on similar facts, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. Asst. yr. 1986-87 Briefly stated, facts of this case are that order passed by learned CIT(A) on earlier occasion was set aside by Tribunal and matter of examining validity of reassessment proceedings was restored to his file. Pursuant to that, learned CIT(A) took up hearing only against validity of initiation of reassessment as directed by Tribunal vide its order dt. 31st March, 2005. In fresh proceedings, he took note of fact that AO has recorded reasons for reopening on 16th July, 1990, which read as under: "Since assessee did not file his return of income for year under consideration, notice under s. 148 of IT Act, 1961 issued to assessee. escaped income exceeds Rs. 50,000." It was claimed on behalf of assessee that he had furnished return under Amnesty Scheme prior to issuance of notice under s. 148 and hence notice was not valid. learned CIT(A) did not accept assessee s contention on ground that return filed under Amnesty Scheme cannot be treated at par with regular return filed in normal course. He noted that this scheme was brought out by Finance Ministry for unearthing black money by way of giving exemption to interest and penalty provisions. He, therefore, did not accept assessee s contention and upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings. learned counsel for assessee contended that learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring return filed by assessee on 31st March, 1987. My attention was drawn towards paper book pp. 10 and 11, being copy of acknowledgement of return under Amnesty Scheme and also computation of total income at Rs. 11,489. While referring to Circular No. 423 and other circulars relevant to Amnesty Scheme, copies placed at p. 53 onwards of paper book, it was contended that there was nothing in scheme to suggest return filed under it should be viewed any differently from normal return filed. It was, therefore, contended that reassessment proceedings be quashed. In opposition, learned Departmental Representative relied on impugned order. He could not draw my attention towards any material/literature qua Amnesty Scheme, which differentiated regular return filed voluntarily vis-a-vis that filed under Amnesty Scheme. After considering rival submissions and perusing relevant material on record, it is observed from p. 17 of paper book, being copy of order- sheet entry of AO for year under question that notice under s. 148 was issued on ground that assessee had not filed his return of income for year in question. said reasons have been extracted above verbatim. From here, it becomes clear that only reason for issuance of notice under s. 148 was that assessee had not filed his return of income for relevant assessment year. As against this, it is found that return was filed by assessee for relevant year under Amnesty Scheme on 31st March, 1987 declaring net taxable income at Rs. 11,489. Copy of acknowledgement of this return leaves nothing to doubt that said return was filed more than three years prior to date of issuance of notice. learned CIT(A) has not accepted assessee s claim on ground that return filed under Amnesty Scheme cannot be equated at par with return voluntarily filed. I am unable to appreciate view point of learned first appellate authority on ground that return filed and acted upon under Amnesty Scheme, is valid return under law. How it can be treated as non est is anybody s guess. Once it is proved that return filed by assessee for year under question was already available with Revenue, then initiation of reassessment proceedings on ground that assessee had not filed his return of income for year, cannot be upheld. As this was sole reason for initiation of reassessment proceedings, in my considered opinion, such proceedings are to b e annulled on ground of non-existence of such reasons. natural corollary that follows from quashing of reassessment is that proceedings flowing from such invalid initiation cannot stand. In result, appeal is allowed. Asstt. yr. 1987-88 In this year also, learned CIT(A) took up matter of initiation of reassessment proceedings on direction of Tribunal as discussed above. Facts of this year and subsequent two years are different from asst. yr. 1986-87 discussed above inasmuch as assessee had not furnished any return prior to issuance of notice under s. 148 for these three years. In same manner, AO issued notice under s. 148 after recording similar reasons on 16th July, 1990. learned CIT(A) upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings on ground that assessee had not furnished return of income for this year and asst. yr. 1985-86 was already reopened and on belief that income of assessee for these years exceeded total income chargeable to tax and for asst. yr. 1984-85 return showing income of Rs. 17,880 plus agricultural income exempt to tune of Rs. 10,000 was already filed and assessed also under s. 143(1). I have heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Explanation 2(a) to s. 147 provides that where no return of income has been furnished by assessee although his total income or total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during previous year exceeded maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. From here, it follows that in order to attract notice under s. 148, it is necessary that assessee should not have furnished his return of income and such income including that of any other person in respect of which t h e assessee is assessable should exceed maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax. Thus, if amount of income exceeds maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax and no return of income has been filed, it would be case of income escaping assessment which would call for issuance of notice under s. 148 and consequentially passing of order under s. 147 would be valid. Admittedly, first condition as stipulated in cl. (a) of Explanation to 147 stands satisfied inasmuch as no return of income was furnished by assessee prior to notice. However, second condition remains to be examined as per which income in respect of which assessee is taxable should exceed maximum amount, which is not chargeable to tax. Admittedly, for asst. yrs. 1986- 87 to 1989-90, exemption limit is Rs. 18,000 and if income of assessee is below such limit, then there is no need to file return. Now, it is to be seen that what evidence was available with Revenue to draw conclusion or even infer that income of assessee was above stipulated limit. learned CIT(A) has noticed fact that income of asst. yr. 1984-85 was shown by assessee at Rs. 17,880 by way of regular return of income. learned Authorised Representative has brought to my notice that determination of income at this level was inaccurate and proceedings under s. 154 were taken by which arrears of salary not earlier bifurcated were divided and relief under s. 89(1), was claimed and allowed. Copy of order under s. 154 is available at p. 5 of assessment order in which it is mentioned that after grant of relief under s. 89(1) no tax demand will stand in assessee s account. It is further mentioned, "after proper verification it is found that relief under s. 89(1) has not been allowed. Now, it is allowed resulting in nil demand. Interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 also reduced to nil". Thus, it is clear that income for asst. yr. 1984-85 was below taxable limit. Return for next asst. yr. 1985-86 was filed by assessee at income of Rs. 8,130 and for asst. yr. 1986-87 at Rs. 11,489 in respect of which assessments were made under s. 143(1) accordingly. From above material it becomes patently clear that income of assessee for all earlier years was below taxable limit. There is no other material on record from which AO could gather that income of assessee for year in question was above taxable limit of Rs. 18,000. learned CIT(A) has dealt with income for asst. yr. 1984-85 at Rs. 17,880 and ignored rectification proceedings carried out for this year which resulted into nil income for this year. In like manner, he has also referred to reopening of assessment for asst. yr. 1985-86. Here again, it is found that facts have not been properly recorded inasmuch as reasons were recorded for asst. yr. 1985-86 as on 21st Dec., 1992, copy of which is available at pp. 14 and 15 of paper book and sanction was given by Addl. CIT vide order dt. 4th Jan., 1993. Thus, it is manifest that notice for asst. yr. 1985-86 was issued for first time in year 1993, whereas notice for instant year was issued on 16th July, 1990 on ground that escaped income exceeds Rs. 50,000 and assessee has not furnished return of income. issuance of notice for asst. yr. 1985-86 after gap of around three years from date of notice in year in question cannot be considered to be valid ground. What is material to be seen is validity of reasons recorded as on relevant date. subsequent events after recording reasons, which give strength to reasons already recorded, are of no avail. Thus, in my considered opinion, learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding validity of initiation of reassessment for this year on basis of reopening of assessment for asst. yr. 1985-86 which event took place after gap of around three years from date of notice for this year. As admittedly for all years prior to instant year income of assessee was below taxable income, in my considered opinion, there is absolutely no justification in reaching conclusion that income of assessee exceeded maximum amount, which was not chargeable to tax. I, therefore, hold that condition laid down in cl. (a) of Expln. (2) to s. 147 is found lacking and hence initiation of reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained. Resultantly, I order for quashing of resulting order passed pursuant to such illegal initiation of reassessment. In result, this appeal is allowed. Asst. yr. 1988-89 Here also, facts are similar to asst. yr. 1987-88 inasmuch as same reasons were recorded by AO on 16th July, 1990. assessee filed his return of income for this year at Rs. 11,360, which is again below taxable limit. Both sides are agreeable that facts and circumstances of this year are identical to asst. yr. 1987-88 discussed above. Following view taken above, I quash reassessment for this year also. In result, this appeal is allowed. Asst. yr. 1989-90 Here also, both sides are in agreement that facts and circumstances for this year are also similar to those of earlier two years. Similar reasons were recorded by AO on 16th July, 1990 and income of assessee returned for this year is again below taxable limit. Following view taken above, I quash reassessment for this year also. In result, appeal is allowed. *** OM PRAKASH PANDYA v. INCOME TAX OFFICER