This batch of five appeals by assessee relates to asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 2001-02. Since some of issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. Asst. yr. 1997-98 First ground challenges invoking of provisions of s. 147 on basis of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 404: (2000) 245 ITR 830 (SC). Briefly stated, facts of case, as gathered from assessment order are that return was filed by assessee, which was processed under s. 143(1)(a) thereby allowing deduction under s. 80-IA. AO observed that assessee was engaged inter alia in business of cutting marble blocks into slabs/tiles and sale thereof, hence deduction under s. 80-IA was not available in view of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra). Notice under s. 148 was issued. Thereafter, he finalized assessment by withdrawing claim of deduction under s. 80-IA amounting to Rs. 21,64,869. learned CIT(A) upheld action of AO in invoking provisions of s. 147. assessee s contention on availability of deduction under s. 80-IA also did not find favour by learned first appellate authority. Before us, learned counsel for assessee contended that very action of AO of issuing notice under s. 148 was not valid in view of recent decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. vs. ITO vide order dt. 30th May, 2007 [reported at (2007) 211 CTR (Raj) 169 Ed.], copy of such judgment was placed on record. It was contended that in this case also assessee was engaged in same business and learned counsel for Department pressed into service judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) before Hon ble High Court as was considered by AO for making reassessment. Referring to pp. 14 and 15 of judgment, it was stated that Hon ble High Court came to hold that business of cutting and sizing of marble blocks amounted to manufacturing and deduction under s. 80-IA was held to be available. It was further held that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) was held to be not applicable on this business. It was further contended that proceedings under s. 147 be held to be invalid. In opposition, learned Departmental Representative contended that no fault can be found with initiation of reassessment proceedings as same accorded with view taken by Hon ble Supreme Court. He relied on judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Chandi Ram vs. ITO (1996) 131 CTR (Raj) 256: (1997) 225 ITR 611 (Raj) in which it was held that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court even if pronounced subsequent to reopening would amount to information for purposes of s. 147(b) of Act. He, therefore, defended impugned order. We have heard rival submissions and perused evidence available on record. undisputed fact is that only basis with AO for initiating reassessment proceedings was decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) which, in his opinion, applied to assessee s business, being cutting marble blocks into marble tiles and slabs. We find that similar issue came up before Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. (supra) and Hon ble High Court vide its judgment dt. 30th May, 2007 came to hold that conversion of marble blocks into slabs and tiles amounts to manufacture of thing or article within meaning of s. 80-IA/80-IB of Act. In view of this binding precedent, it is clear that assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80-IA, as claimed by it in return of income. Now point argued by learned Departmental Representative is to sustain initiation of reassessment proceedings in view of decision of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) which has been considered by AO as basis for reopening. We observe that in case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (supra) said decision of Hon ble Supreme Court was cited by learned standing counsel and dealt with by Hon ble High Court at pp. 14 and 15 of judgment by holding that Hon ble Supreme Court did not examine issue about fact whether business of mining of limestone and marble blocks, thereafter cutting and sizing same before it was sold in market amounted to manufacture or production. Thus it becomes apparent that said decision of Hon ble apex Court was held to be distinguishable on facts and not applicable to nature of activity carried out by assessee, which fact has not been controverted by Departmental Representative. decision in Chandi Ram (supra) relied upon by learned Departmental Representative does not advance his point any further. In this case, it was held that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, even if pronounced subsequent to reopening would amount to information for s. 147(b). There is no such subsequent decision of Hon ble apex Court, which can be applied. Here is case in which subsequent judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court has invalidated action of AO in reopening of instant assessment. If contention of learned Departmental Representative for sustaining validity of initiation of reassessment is upheld, it would amount to violation of verdict of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, which obviously cannot be case. In light of above, it becomes manifest that opinion of AO being application of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) to facts of case, is unfounded in light of recent decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (supra). We, therefore, quash very initiation of reassessment and resultant proceedings flowing therefrom. Ground No. 2 deals with denial of claim of deduction under s. 80-IA and ground No. 3 deals with charging of interest under s. 234B of Act. Since very initiation of reassessment proceedings has been held to be invalid, there is no need to adjudicate upon these grounds on merits. At this juncture, we would like to mention that assessee has furnished application for additional ground qua exemption of sales-tax under Sales-tax Incentive Scheme announced by State Government of Rajasthan. undisputed facts are that no such exemption was claimed by assessee in return filed by it. Neither any claim was made before AO at time of passing of order under s. 147 nor such issue was raised before learned CIT(A). learned Departmental Representative, in our considered opinion has rightly objected to admission of this additional ground. contention put forth by learned Authorised Representative that it is legal ground and should be admitted is not sustainable. His reliance on Hon ble Supreme Court decision in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249: (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) is misconceived on ground that Hon ble Supreme Court in that case directed admission of additional ground, which was purely legal one. It was held that Tribunal cannot decline such additional ground which involves question of law that "arises from facts as found by authorities below" and having tax bearing on liability on assessee. Per contra, facts of this additional ground did not ever become matter of such consideration by authorities below. In our considered opinion, it is too late in day for assessee to come up with this additional ground. It is further observed that AO basically made addition by disallowing deduction under s. 80-IA and if assessee is allowed to raise claim of exemption from payment of sales-tax vide its additional ground, it would amount to reduction in declared income without there being any revised return in this regard, which is impermissible. There is still another interesting aspect. No assessment was framed under s. 143(3) and return filed by assessee was processed under s. 143(1)(a). present proceedings flowing out of notice issued by AO under s. 148 have been quashed by us above. position which emerges is that case of assessee is back to square one, meaning thereby, that processing of return under s. 143(1)(a) stands and subsequent proceedings initiated vide notice under s. 148 are set to naught. If no proceedings are open, there cannot be any question of raising or admitting any additional ground. For foregoing reasons, we refuse to admit additional ground. In result, appeal is disposed of in above terms. Asst. yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 Facts of these three years are similar to asst. yr. 1997-98 in which notice under s. 148 was issued taking assistance from judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra). Both sides are in agreement that facts and circumstances of these years are similar to those of asst. yr. 1997-98. Following view taken above, we quash notice under s. 148. additional ground raised by assessee, on same set of facts and circumstances, is also not admitted. In result appeals for three years are also disposed of in above terms. Asst. yr. 2000-01 In this year also assessee filed return which was processed under s. 143(1)(a) and no assessment under s. 143(3) was made. Thereafter AO issued notice under s. 148 on two grounds viz., first being applicability of decision of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) and his opinion about non- availability of deduction under s. 80-IA and second about non-eligibility of deduction under s. 80HHC to assessee. We have heard rival submissions and perused evidence available o n record. Insofar as view of AO regarding applicability of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, that has been dealt with by us in preceding paras. Coming to non-eligibility of deduction under s. 80HHC, learned counsel for assessee has invited our attention towards order passed by Jodhpur Bench of Tribunal in case of Aravali Minerals & Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Jd) 195 in which assessee was held to be eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC on export of cut and polished dimensional marble blocks. learned Departmental Representative has fairly conceded factual position. We, therefore, hold that notice issued under s. 148 is not sustainable on both grounds taken note of by AO. We, therefore, quash notice under s. 148 and resultant proceedings following therefrom. There is no need to discuss other grounds taken note of by AO in memo of appeal as very initiation of reassessment proceedings has been held to be invalid. application of assessee for entertaining additional ground on exemption of sales-tax incentive is also dismissed for reasons recorded above. In result, appeal of assessee is disposed of in above terms. *** KUSHAL BAGH MARBLES (P) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX