This is reference application under s. 256(2) of IT Act, 1961 at instance of Revenue. Manohar Lal Gupta (for short, assessee ), on 9th Oct., 1979 was apprehended by Customs authorities, Jaipur at Ghat Gate, Jaipur. search was conducted on his person and file bag that he was carrying in w h i c h emeralds and Ruby (finished goods) of about Rs. 3,48,116 were recovered. For want of any proof by him for lawful acquisition/possession of said goods, Customs authorities seized said goods somewhere in third week of October, 1979. seized goods were delivered to authorised officer (ITO) under s. 132A(2) of IT Act, 1961 by Customs authorities on 29th Dec., 1980. Pertinently, ITO, H-Ward, Jaipur, on 27th Nov., 1981, passed provisional order of assessment under s. 132(5) assessing undisclosed income of assessee at Rs. 3,48,116 and raising total tax liability at Rs. 3,49,509. On 31st May, 1982, assessee filed return of income for asst. yr. 1980-81 showing total income of Rs. 9,610. concerned ITO passed order on 15th June, 1982 under s. 143(1) accepting returned income. However, on 16th Nov., 1983, ITO, H-Ward issued notice under s. 147/148 to assessee for escapement of his income. assessee responded to notice and raised various objections. AO by his order dt. 14th Feb., 1986 assessed appellant s income at Rs. 1,90,090 (this included income from undisclosed source amounting to Rs. 1,73,992 being value of precious and semi-precious stones based on value by Appraiser, Foreign Post Office, Jaipur of seized goods by Customs authorities). assessee challenged order of ITO, H-Ward, Jaipur passed on 14th Feb., 1986 by filing appeal before CIT(A), Rajasthan-II, Jaipur. CIT(A) allowed appeal by his order dt. 23rd March, 1988 and set aside order of AO holding that reopening of assessment under s. 147 of IT Act was bad in law as primary and basic facts were within knowledge of AO. Revenue approached Tribunal by filing appeal against order of t h e CIT(A). assessee filed cross-objections therein. Tribunal after hearing parties by its order dt. 27th March, 1992 affirmed order of CIT(A) and dismissed appeal of Revenue and cross-objections of assessee. Revenue made application before Tribunal under s. 256(1) for making reference of following question of law to Rajasthan High Court for its answer: "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in upholding CIT(A) s order quashing reassessment made under s. 143(3)/148 of IT Act, 1961?" Tribunal by its order dt. 14th July, 1993 dismissed said application. It is in these circumstances that Revenue has made this application under s. 256(2) for asking Tribunal to refer aforenoticed question to this Court for its opinion. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, counsel for Revenue made two-fold submissions: (one) that order dt. 14th Feb., 1986 passed by AO under s. 143(1) of I T Act is only intimation and not assessment order and yet Tribunal observed that without taking action under s. 143(2)(b) of IT Act proceedings under s. 147 could not have been initiated and (two) that assessee failed to disclose in his return income, facts concerning seized goods (emerald and ruby having value of Rs. 3,48,116) and, therefore, AO did not commit any error or illegality in issuing notice for reopening case. He would submit that notice issued to assessee for reopening assessment for asst. yr. 1980-81 was within time. He, thus, submitted that question of law arises from facts of present case as to whether Tribunal was justified in upholding order of CIT(A) quashing reassessment made under s. 143(3)/148 of IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 1980-81? Mr. J.K. Ranka, advocate for assessee supported order of Tribunal and submitted that matter stands concluded on facts and it does not give rise to any question of law. Though in support of his first contention, that order dt. 15th June, 1982 passed by AO under s. 143(1) was only intimation, counsel for Revenue relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in case of Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30: (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), yet we find that observations of Supreme Court that acceptance of return under s. 143(1) is intimation and not assessment order are referable to amended provisions of s. 143(1) post 1st April, 1989. Insofar as provisions of s. 143(1) as it stood prior to 1st April, 1989 were concerned, Supreme Court held thus: "under s. 143(1)(a) as it stood prior to 1st April, 1989, AO had to pass assessment order if he decided to accept return, but under amended provision, requirement of passing of assessment order has been dispensed with and instead intimation is required to be sent." Thus, order dt. 15th June, 1982 accepting return by AO is order of assessment. Of course, failure to take steps under s. 143(3) will not render AO powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings when order has been passed under s. 143(1). In case in hand, it is not contention of assessee that without taking steps under s. 143(3), AO was powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings having accepted return under s. 143(1). assessee opposed reassessment proceedings principally on ground that all basic and primary facts were in know of AO when he passed assessment order on 15th June, 1982 and, thus, reassessment proceedings could not have been initiated on basis of same material; action amounts to change of opinion which is not permissible in law. counsel for Revenue strenuously urged that it was obligatory on part of assessee to disclose facts concerning seizure of finished goods (emerald and ruby) which he did not and, therefore, on basis of new information concerning seizure of goods and report from Customs authorities, reassessment proceedings were initiated. According to him, AO did not commit any illegality in initiating reassessment proceedings on new information concerning income of assessee having come to notice of AO. We are unable to accept submission of counsel for Revenue. As noticed above, goods were seized by Customs authorities somewhere in third week of October, 1979 and after valuation of said goods having been got done by Customs authorities from Appraiser, Foreign Post Office, Jaipur, said goods were delivered to ITO under provisions of s. 132A(2) of IT Act, 1961 on 29th Dec., 1980. As matter of fact, ITO, H- Ward, Jaipur framed provisional assessment order under s. 132(5) of IT Act assessing income of assessee at Rs. 3,48,116. assessee filed return of income for asst. yr. 1980-81 thereafter on 31st May, 1982 and order under s. 143(1) accepting return of income was passed on 15th June, 1982. AO, thus, at time of passing of order dt. 15th June, 1982 had in his possession all primary facts necessary for framing assessment and it was for him to draw proper inference from those facts which ITO did not do. It was, thus, plainly case of oversight by AO and not that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Our view finds support from decisions of Supreme Court in cases of Gemini Leather Stores vs. ITO & Ors. 1975 CTR (SC) 1127: (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Supreme Court upon consideration of decisions in cases of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC); and CIT vs. Hemchandra Kar & Ors. (1970) 77 ITR 1 (SC), held thus: "In case before us assessee did not disclose transactions evidenced by drafts which ITO discovered. After this discovery ITO had in his possession all primary facts, and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether amounts invested in purchase of drafts could be treated as part of total income of assessee during relevant year. This ITO did not do. It was plainly case of oversight, and it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax for relevant assessment year had escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. ITO had all material facts before him when he made original assessment. He cannot now take recourse to s. 147(a) to remedy error resulting from his own oversight." consideration of matter by Tribunal is in accord with law consideration of matter by Tribunal is in accord with law exposited by Supreme Court in aforereferred case. We are, thus, satisfied that order of Tribunal dt. 27th March, 1992 does not give rise to any question of law and rejection of application under s. 256(1) is not flawed. income-tax application is, accordingly, dismissed. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MANOHAR LAL GUPTA