and the power to grant approval was delegated
to the Directors of STPI by IMSC. It is not as
if the assessee claimed exemption under Section
10B without any such approval. It is a case
where the order of approval, which was validly
granted, was produced before the Assessing
Officer at the time of scrutiny and the
Assessing Officer also accepted the approval
order and granted exemption. Thus, the reason
stated in the impugned proceedings that the
assessee committed a mistake cannot be
accepted. The assessee was possessing a valid
approval which was produced before the
Assessing Officer and if a ratification is to
be obtained, then the Assessing Officer, at the
time of scrutiny, ought to have directed the
assessee to get any such ratification
certificate for the purpose of grant of
exemption under Section 10B which the
Department had not done. Thus, it was a
mistake or omission committed by the Assessing
Officer at the time of passing of the original
assessment order. Even in such cases, if the
reopening of assessment is made within a period
of four years, then there is a ground for the
Department to reopen the same. However, in the
present case, the reopening of assessment is
made beyond the period of four years and
therefore,thestatutoryrequirement
contemplated under Section 147 is to be
complied with scrupulously. Thus, the ground
taken for reopening of assessment that the
assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all
material facts is not established in the
present case and the assessee, in fact,
submitted all the particulars regarding the
approval granted by the authority and further
ratification, if required, must be instructed
by the Department which was not done and
therefore, there was no suppression or non-
disclosure of material facts by the assessee.
Thus, the initiation of proceedings under
Section 147 of the Act, beyond the period of
