Allowing the petition the Court held that duty of disclosing of primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee. The duty, however, does not extend beyond the full and true disclosure of all primary facts. Once, the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inference of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inference ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else to tell the assessing authority the inferences whether of facts or law should be drawn. Even for a moment, it is accepted that the AO has missed to take note of the law laid down by the Punjab & Haryana Court, Sumeet Taneja v. CIT ITA. No. 293 of 2012 dt. 22-8-2013   still that cannot be a reason to take recourse to reopen to remedy the error resulting from this oversight.  Reassessment notice was quashed Referred Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v.  ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) and Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC). (A.Y. 2013-14)