JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Siddharth Mridul J.-By way of this writ petition writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing notice dated March 28, 2013, issued by respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax) under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). facts of present writ petition are enunciated as below: On November 29, 2006, petitioner-assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2006-07. aforesaid return of income of petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment, vide issue of notice under section 143(2) of said Act dated September 28, 2007. On December 20, 2007, Assessing Officer issued another notice along with detailed questionnaire raising queries on 32 points. Vide said questionnaire, Assessing Officer with respect to query No. 1 required petitioner-assessee to submit audited account along with audit report. Further, with respect to query No. 9, Assessing Officer required petitioner-assessee to submit details with regard to loans taken by petitioner-assessee, requiring information with respect to opening balance, addition, repayment, rate of interest, interest accrued, interest received, etc. Further, with respect to query No. 12 of said questionnaire Assessing Officer required petitioner-assessee to submit details with respect to loans and advances given by petitionerassessee along with details with respect to rates of interest on advances, interest received on advances, etc. On July 23, 2008, petitioner-assessee submitted its response with respect to questionnaire issued by Assessing Officer. With respect to query No. 1, petitioner-assessee submitted auditor's report and audited accounts. In said auditor's report, auditor had mentioned that petitioner-assessee has given interest-free loans/advances to group companies totalling to Rs. 5,20,57,726 as at year end. In said report, auditor has also commented that terms and conditions of said advances are not prima facie prejudicial to interests of petitioner-assessee. Further, it was commented that disclosure regarding loans/advances to group companies was also made by petitioner-assessee in audited notes of account. In schedule of loans and advances forming part of audited accounts, it is mentioned that out of loans and advances outstanding at year-end, substantial amount of advances are brought forward from preceding year. said audited accounts also contained details of interest and financial charges of Rs. 81,30,819 debited to profit and loss account. With respect to query No. 9 of Assessing Officer, petitionerassessee furnished schedules of loan taken along with interest payment. petitioner-assessee submitted that all loans taken are for specific business purpose, like purchase of vehicle, plant and machinery, etc. With respect to query No. 12 of Assessing Officer, petitionerassessee furnished details of loans and advances including advance of Rs. 5,20,57,726 to group companies. In reply to Assessing Officer's query as to why interest is not charged on loans and advances, it was explained that loans and advances are given for business purposes. It was submitted to Assessing Officer that loans and advances are given by assessee-company from available interest-free funds placed at disposal of assessee in form of share capital, reserves and surplus and sales proceeds, which exceed amount of loans and advances given. Thereafter, on August 5, 2008, another questionnaire was issued by Assessing Officer. reply to aforesaid questionnaire was submitted by petitioner-assessee on August 12, 2008, mentioning commercial advantage arising out of business transactions with group companies. On August 29, 2008, scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) of said Act was issued by respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax) determining total income at Rs. 1,06,25,560. Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued impugned notice dated March 28, 2013, for reopening of assessment under section 148 of said Act. petitioner-assessee submitted its response before Assessing Officer to treat return as originally filed under section 139 of said Act as return for purpose of section 148 of said Act and asked for reasons recorded under section 148 of said Act. On December 3, 2013, Assessing Officer forwarded copy of recorded reasons for reopening assessment. In recorded reasons reopening has been proposed on ground that since petitionerassessee has granted interest-free loan of Rs. 5,20,57,726, therefore, proportionate disallowance on account of interest and financial charges of Rs. 56,01,390 out of total interest and financial charges of Rs. 81,30,819 debited in profit and loss account should have been made resulting in underassessment of income. On January 17, 2014, petitioner-assessee submitted their objections to reopening of assessment on ground that reopening is initiated on basis of review or re-appreciation of same material and no fresh material of any sort has come in possession of Department as also there has been no failure on part of petitioner-assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts. respondent rejected objection of petitioner-assessee, vide his letter dated January 24, 2014. Admittedly, issuance of notice under section 148 of said Act is beyond period of four years from end of relevant assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2006-2007. Consequently, first proviso of section 147 of said Act would be relevant. first proviso of section 147 of said Act is reproduced hereinbelow: "147... Provided that where assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on part of assessee to make return under section 139 or in response to notice issued under subsection (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year." point urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner was that in case where proviso to section 147 of said Act was applicable, it must be clearly indicated that understatement of income was on account of failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. purported reasons behind issuance of notice under section 148 of said Act are reproduced below: "... assessment of M/s. Global Signal Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2006-07 was completed after scrutiny in September, 2008, determining income of Rs. 1,06,25,5578. It is gathered that assessee debited Rs. 81,30,819 to profit and loss account on account of interest and financial charges. In auditor's report it was stated that interest-free loan up to tune of Rs. 5,20,57,726 had been given to other companies. Therefore, proportionate amount of expense on account of interest and financial charge should have been disallowed by Assessing Officer. mistake resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 56,01,390 involving short levy of tax of Rs. 24,32,200 including interest. On basis of facts as stated above, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs. 1 lakh has escaped assessment, as assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year. Hence, notice under section 147 read with section 148 for reopening of assessment is required to be issued in this case." It is evident that while Assessing Officer mentioned that income had escaped assessment because of failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts for assessment, he has not indicated as to which material fact had not been fully and truly disclosed by petitioner- assessee. learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on decision of this court in case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi). While considering provisions of sections 147 and 148 of said Act, in particular first proviso thereof, this court observed as under (page 57): "In reasons supplied to petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen assessments beyond four year period indicated above. escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by failure on part of assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This is necessary condition for overcoming bar set up by proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, bar would operate and no action under section 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that reasons supplied to petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of conditions precedent for removing bar against taking action after said four year period remains unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Delhi) we had agreed with view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Duli Chand Singhania [2004] 269 ITR 192 (P&H) that, in absence of allegation in reasons recorded that escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by Assessing Officer under section 147 beyond four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view-point, we hold that notice dated March 29, 2004, under section 148 based on recorded reasons as supplied to petitioner as well as consequent order dated March 2, 2005, are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond four year period in circumstances narrated above." (underlining added) same principle is reiterated in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 355 ITR 356 (Delhi). Also in Microsoft Corporation (I) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (W. P. (C.) No. 284 of 2013, decided on May 23, 2013) [2013] 357 ITR 50 (Delhi) Division Bench of this court had observed as under (page 67): "From above, it is evident that merely having reason to believe that income had escaped assessment is not sufficient for reopening assessment beyond four year period referred to above. It is essential that escapement of income from assessment must be occasioned by failure on part of of income from assessment must be occasioned by failure on part of assessee to, inter alia, disclose material facts, fully and truly. If this condition is not satisfied, there would be bar to taking any action under section 147 of said Act." facts of present case are squarely covered by decision of Division Bench of this court in Swarovski India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT-W. P. (C.) 1909 of 2013, decided on August 8, 2014-since reported in [2014] 368 ITR 601 (Delhi) wherein notice under section 148 of said Act was quashed for being issued after expiry of four years from relevant assessment year wherein there was no specific mention of which material facts were not disclosed by assessee in course of its original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of said Act. relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow (page 607): "It is clear that escapement of income by itself is not sufficient for reopening assessment in case covered by first proviso to section 147 of said Act unless and until there is failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In present case, it has not been specifically indicated as to which material fact or facts was/were not disclosed by petitioner in course of its original assessment under section 143(3) of said Act." In present case also, there exist no grounds for reopening assessment after expiry of four years from relevant assessment year. notice under section 148 of said Act is based on reappreciation of same material on record. respondent has not specifically indicated as to which material facts were not disclosed by petitioner-assessee in course of assessment proceedings under said Act. In view of aforesaid discussion, notice dated March 28, 2013, issued by respondent under section 148 of said Act is liable to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. All proceedings pursuant to notice dated March 28, 2013, also stands quashed. writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. *** Global Signal Cables (India) P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax